Mosques declared terrorism organisations by NYPD: Report

[karan.1970]

You think this is extreme? US citizens, who happen to be Muslims, that go to other nations have been denied return entry because...reasons. They themselves don't even know why they were denied re-entry into the USA, and in some extreme cases, some of these people have even been arrested by the nations they've visited at the behest of the US.

any examples.. ?

 

[--,-'{@]

India should also adopt this good step to reduce any possibility of terrorism. Yes madrassas and mosques have been proved in the past to be the hiding place for TERRORISTS.

 

[That Guy]

any examples.. ?

More U.S. Muslims facing problems in return from abroad, groups say

 

[gambit]

A lot of oil contracts didn't even go to the U.S in Iraq.

Anyway some mosques are known for their radical teaching Al-Quds Mosque for example, I think this gives the police the power to do better surveillance, if you see a christian church talking about killing others then be my guest.

I'm not familar with how holy places work, does everyone who goes there officially sign up? or is it just the leadership of the mosque that are part of the organisation?

And THAT is the point that people missed.

In the US, it is not a crime to speak one's mind, even if one's opinions are hostile to the government. So if a mosque is being used to espouse anti-US opinions, it is still not a crime. However, the power to influence via words and emotions invoked from those words are not lost to people and it does not matter if they are in government service or not.

Companies, from makers of liquid refreshments to makers of automobiles, pay hundreds of million$ for a 30-sec advertising time slot on the most holy day in the US -- The Super Bowl. They do so because they, and we, believe in the power of messages. So why is it so unthinkable that some religious leaders could use religion and houses of religions to espouse hate?

If it is not a crime for me to say 'I hate America', it should not be a crime for those who love America to keep an eye on me.

 

[Gentelman]

@WebMaster @Armstrong after the heading this thread should not be allowed to be discussed…
don't you think??
and the person who started this worth a treatment……

 

[Gentelman]

India should also adopt this good step to reduce any possibility of terrorism. Yes madrassas and mosques have been proved in the past to be the hiding place for TERRORISTS.

This man actually morning the death of Bal Thakery……
the a$$ which was a safe heaven for hindu terrorists blown……
what about your Modi??
He too is extremist so he too should be banned……
wait……
you have already more probs…
you have to make sure security of your family before they got raped……

any examples.. ?

disappointed to see such a seniour member in such threads……

 

[Coltsfan]

Imagine if we declare the Pakistani church as a terrorist organization. That will be 'religious intolerance' - straight up wouldn't it?

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but majority of terrorists are Muslims.

It only makes sense for NYPD to monitor Mosques for any terrorism related activities

 

[That Guy]

And THAT is the point that people missed.

In the US, it is not a crime to speak one's mind, even if one's opinions are hostile to the government. So if a mosque is being used to espouse anti-US opinions, it is still not a crime. However, the power to influence via words and emotions invoked from those words are not lost to people and it does not matter if they are in government service or not.

Companies, from makers of liquid refreshments to makers of automobiles, pay hundreds of million$ for a 30-sec advertising time slot on the most holy day in the US -- The Super Bowl. They do so because they, and we, believe in the power of messages. So why is it so unthinkable that some religious leaders could use religion and houses of religions to espouse hate?

If it is not a crime for me to say 'I hate America', it should not be a crime for those who love America to keep an eye on me.

What you just described, is called a police state. A state where citizens are monitored without their consent.

 

[Coltsfan]

What you just described, is called a police state. A state where citizens are monitored without their consent.

Why would you monitor someone with their consent? That would defeat the purpose of monitoring, wouldn't it?

 

[That Guy]

Why would you monitor someone with their consent? That would defeat the purpose of monitoring, wouldn't it?

Needless monitoring under the assumption that your citizens are a threat to society without any proof is the problem, not to mention infringement of privacy which is protected under the US constitution.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but majority of terrorists are Muslims.

It only makes sense for NYPD to monitor Mosques for any terrorism related activities

Except that terrorist attacks related to Muslims is lower than terrorist attacks related to non-Muslims in the US.

What you're suggesting is akin to collective punishment. If one person does something wrong, punish his entire family.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[gambit]

What you just described, is called a police state. A state where citizens are monitored without their consent.

But not without reasons and just cause.

If someone stalks me, he does not do it without a reason and perhaps even in his mind a just cause. A would be rapist stalks a woman for what? A delightful conversation over coffee and pastries? A would be burglar stalks a target for what? How about to know the victim's daily travel pattern?

I said it before and will say it again: That we do not live our lives in an intellectual and moral vacuum and that everything we do, including biological responses, must have a reason/cause/motivation.

So would a convicted rapist who registered as a sex offender consent to his surveillance?

Like it or not, even though no one sane believes that all Muslims are terrorists, the same sane people have would have no problems placing a demographic under suspicion and what is the reason for Americans, particularly N'Yorkers, to be suspicious of mosques?

When the American government criticizes another government, we do not rally American citizens to a mob, burn that country's flag, calls out 'Death to...', and all the while other people in the background chants 'Jesus Is Great'.

Do not dare to tell US that somehow we, in N'York, is unique in this. Christians who were/are persecuted in Muslim countries are always under observation, overt and covert, by ordinary and regular Muslims and/or by the Muslim government, and that explains a lot on how many Christian houses burned, Christians assaulted or even worse.

Inshallah and Allahu Akbar.

 

[That Guy]

But not without reasons and just cause.

If someone stalks me, he does not do it without a reason and perhaps even in his mind a just cause. A would be rapist stalks a woman for what? A delightful conversation over coffee and pastries? A would be burglar stalks a target for what? How about to know the victim's daily travel pattern?

I said it before and will say it again: That we do not live our lives in an intellectual and moral vacuum and that everything we do, including biological responses, must have a reason/cause/motivation.

So would a convicted rapist who registered as a sex offender consent to his surveillance?

Like it or not, even though no one sane believes that all Muslims are terrorists, the same sane people have would have no problems placing a demographic under suspicion and what is the reason for Americans, particularly N'Yorkers, to be suspicious of mosques?

When the American government criticizes another government, we do not rally American citizens to a mob, burn that country's flag, calls out 'Death to...', and all the while other people in the background chants 'Jesus Is Great'.

Do not dare to tell US that somehow we, in N'York, is unique in this. Christians who were/are persecuted in Muslim countries are always under observation, overt and covert, by ordinary and regular Muslims and/or by the Muslim government, and that explains a lot on how many Christian houses burned, Christians assaulted or even worse.

Inshallah and Allahu Akbar.

Then why not put a star and crescent tattoo or sticker on every Muslim so they can be easily identified, you know, just in case?Wait, didn't the Nazis also do that with Jews? You can say that this is not what you meant, but this is the logical extreme of your views.

The bolded part is an extremely simplistic view;

I'm going to address it point by point; first, you said:

So would a convicted rapist who registered as a sex offender consent to his surveillance?

Are you really comparing convicted rapists to innocent people who've done nothing wrong other than being Muslim? If you are, then I pity you.

Next;

Like it or not, even though no one sane believes that all Muslims are terrorists, the same sane people have would have no problems placing a demographic under suspicion and what is the reason for Americans, particularly N'Yorkers, to be suspicious of mosques?

Of course no sane person believes that all Muslims are terrorists and vice versa, but I can guarantee you that those same people WOULD have a problem with placing an entire demographic under suspicion. Let me ask you this, should all black people be placed under surveillance because a man who was arrested for drug dealing was black? Should every Indian man be put under surveillance because India has a problem with rape? What you're suggesting is beyond ridiculous, it's complete ludicrous.

When the American government criticizes another government, we do not rally American citizens to a mob, burn that country's flag, calls out 'Death to...', and all the while other people in the background chants 'Jesus Is Great'.

No government actually does that, it's called mob mentality. Having said that, what about the so called "ground zero mosque" protests? Or how about the SIOA movement?

You're ignoring the fact that Americans are no different when it comes to mob mentalities than any other country in the world.

Do not dare to tell US that somehow we, in N'York, is unique in this. Christians who were/are persecuted in Muslim countries are always under observation, overt and covert, by ordinary and regular Muslims and/or by the Muslim government, and that explains a lot on how many Christian houses burned, Christians assaulted or even worse.

In fact, I'm saying the opposite. By doing this, you've become no better than those Muslim nations that monitor and prosecute Christians.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable is horrifying to say the least, two wrongs do not make a right. The whole "you do it to us, so we should do it back to you." is a simplistic view, nothing more. Not only that, it sounds as if you're looking for revenge and nothing more.


God willing and God is great, indeed.

 

[--,-'{@]

This man actually morning the death of Bal Thakery……
the a$$ which was a safe heaven for hindu terrorists blown……
what about your Modi??
He too is extremist so he too should be banned……
wait……
you have already more probs…
you have to make sure security of your family before they got raped……



disappointed to see such a seniour member in such threads……

lol y are u so worked up eh? its fr ur own safety as if there havent been any instances of TERRORISTS hiding in ur religious places before? and dont worry abt m6 family, u should be more worried abt ur family being blown into bits and pieces. so my advice is tht u n ur family wear bullet proof jackets and roam around in bomb proof vehicles (if u could afford so)

 

[gambit]

Then why not put a star and crescent tattoo or sticker on every Muslim so they can be easily identified, you know, just in case?Wait, didn't the Nazis also do that with Jews? You can say that this is not what you meant, but this is the logical extreme of your views.

No need. The Muslims with their hatred for non-Muslims, particularly Jews, will be identifiers enough.

Are you really comparing convicted rapists to innocent people who've done nothing wrong other than being Muslim? If you are, then I pity you.

No. I do not . I used it as an example. But an example no less extreme than the Muslims who considers Jews to be less than humans, as in 'apes and pigs', eh?

If it bothers you that much, then I will use another example...

Supposed you are a representative of the law patrolling the highway. You come up behind two vehicles: a red Ferrari and a boring gray minivan. The Ferrari's driver is a man to be his late forties. The minivan's driver is a woman of approximate equal age and you can also see a baby seat in the rear seat.

Which vehicle would you focus your attention given your training based upon history of drivers? No matter which, do you think that either driver, especially of the Ferrari, would consent to you monitoring them as they go on their way when they have broken no laws?

Of course no sane person believes that all Muslims are terrorists and vice versa, but I can guarantee you that those same people WOULD have a problem with placing an entire demographic under suspicion. Let me ask you this, should all black people be placed under surveillance because a man who was arrested for drug dealing was black? Should every Indian man be put under surveillance because India has a problem with rape?

And you would be wrong. Profiling does not need to be formalized and institutionalized in order for it to exist. We all do it. You, me, and the next door neighbors. It does not need to be conscious in order for it to be exercised by the person. If you go into a Chinese restaurant, you expect the staff to be Chinese, or at least Asians. But funny enough, we have in the US Chinese fast food restaurants staffed by Mexicans.

Anyway...If you expect a Chinese restaurant to be staffed by Chinese or at least Asians, you are already guilty of racial profiling, albeit the benign sort.

Sane people profile.

What you're suggesting is beyond ridiculous, it's complete ludicrous.

No. It is human nature.

No government actually does that, it's called mob mentality.

Give me a break. For example...The Chinese government is well known for instigating anti-Japanese mob protests when convenient.

Having said that, what about the so called "ground zero mosque" protests? Or how about the SIOA movement?

They are not government sponsored. If anything, given the recent IRS scandal in the US, they are actually under government suspicion.

You're ignoring the fact that Americans are no different when it comes to mob mentalities than any other country in the world.

Never said we are different in that regards. But do let us know when there is an American mob burning a country's flag at the government's bidding.

In fact, I'm saying the opposite. By doing this, you've become no better than those Muslim nations that monitor and prosecute Christians.

If we are no better, there would be forced conversions of Muslims into Christians.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable is horrifying to say the least, two wrongs do not make a right. The whole "you do it to us, so we should do it back to you." is a simplistic view, nothing more. Not only that, it sounds as if you're looking for revenge and nothing more.

Wrong. N'Yorkers did not monitor mosques because of persecuted Christians in Muslim countries. Such persecutions have been going on long before. Rather...It had to do with a couple of buildings that are no longer there...Hmmm...I seems to have forgotten the buildings' names at the moment... Must be the beer...Care to help me out with their names?

God willing and God is great, indeed.

Is it helping?

 

[That Guy]

No need. The Muslims with their hatred for non-Muslims, particularly Jews, will be identifiers enough.


No. I do not . I used it as an example. But an example no less extreme than the Muslims who considers Jews to be less than humans, as in 'apes and pigs', eh?

If it bothers you that much, then I will use another example...

Supposed you are a representative of the law patrolling the highway. You come up behind two vehicles: a red Ferrari and a boring gray minivan. The Ferrari's driver is a man to be his late forties. The minivan's driver is a woman of approximate equal age and you can also see a baby seat in the rear seat.

Which vehicle would you focus your attention given your training based upon history of drivers? No matter which, do you think that either driver, especially of the Ferrari, would consent to you monitoring them as they go on their way when they have broken no laws?


And you would be wrong. Profiling does not need to be formalized and institutionalized in order for it to exist. We all do it. You, me, and the next door neighbors. It does not need to be conscious in order for it to be exercised by the person. If you go into a Chinese restaurant, you expect the staff to be Chinese, or at least Asians. But funny enough, we have in the US Chinese fast food restaurants staffed by Mexicans.

Anyway...If you expect a Chinese restaurant to be staffed by Chinese or at least Asians, you are already guilty of racial profiling, albeit the benign sort.

Sane people profile.


No. It is human nature.


Give me a break. For example...The Chinese government is well known for instigating anti-Japanese mob protests when convenient.


They are not government sponsored. If anything, given the recent IRS scandal in the US, they are actually under government suspicion.


Never said we are different in that regards. But do let us know when there is an American mob burning a country's flag at the government's bidding.


If we are no better, there would be forced conversions of Muslims into Christians.


Wrong. N'Yorkers did not monitor mosques because of persecuted Christians in Muslim countries. Such persecutions have been going on long before. Rather...It had to do with a couple of buildings that are no longer there...Hmmm...I seems to have forgotten the buildings' names at the moment... Must be the beer...Care to help me out with their names?


Is it helping?

Your hatred shows through in this comment, because all you're doing is repeating yourself instead of actually addressing my points properly, not to mention misrepresent facts and present your own views as indisputable.

Yeah, I'm done here.