What's new

Russia Detains 300 Muslims During Prayer

I have, lets review together shall we, you replied to this:

Where does he claims they are guilty? he does no such thing.

OK, I thought you were referring to something else. There were multiple conversations going on and, if you don't indicate which particular post you are quoting, I can't know to which conversation you are referring.

Another poster had implied that these people are guilty, and I thought you were referring to it.

As for your example, it comes back to the simple premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. You guys are working backwards and assuming that, if the police detain someone, then that person must prove their innocence.

So I stand by my statement that, barring a conviction, these people should be viewed as innnocent.

Not quite, the OP states that no reason was given yet, your terminology implies randomness and that no reason exists, a fine difference I know.

Most of the rest of your post boils down to "there was a reason for detaining these specific individuals but it was not made public".

Since most of these people were released, and this happened three times this year, the police justification doesn't seem to have been well founded.

I see you have a habit to pretend you know about the subject and pass opinion as fact.

Uh no. It only seems that way to you because you may not understand which part of "due process" is being violated. Note this amendment to NDAA:

Another amendment from Virginia’s Bob Goodlatte that would require the government to provide definitive evidence that a detainee was an enemy combatant also passed

All along here, we have been talking about the authorities having to justify continued detention, and this amendment requires them to do so.

The part of "due process" that is being violated is the right to a timely trial, and we have not been discussing that here.

I don't get it, can you help me? Are you saying that the raid was illegal?

No, I am not saying that Russian police would break their own laws. However, as I indicated, unless there is imminent danger, police usually don't interrupt prayers at a religious place. It amounts to harassment to keep doing such raids and mass detentions during prayer. Especially, when most of the people are not violent criminals or terrorists, and are released subsequently anyway.


Do you take as fact any claims made by unnamed official which is quoted in a news paper?

Are you saying Reuters made up the specific quote by Putin as part of a conspiracy against him?

The comment about agenda was indeed inappropriate, I apologize :)

Thank you.

With programmes called Echelon, Prism etc....

Oh totally.
No one is claiming that the Western system is perfect. It's all relative, and we are talking about physical detention.
 
Here are a couple sites

1. The Slavs (+ Rus) Sunnis (Sufis).
http://vk.com/club23658067
http://vk.com/public25167413
http://vk.com/pravoverie


2. The Slavs (+ Rus) Shia (Shiites).
http://vk.com/arsh313
http://vk.com/shiitproroka


3. "The Slavs (+ Rus) Wahhabi ... they do not have the National Party (the Site page, public, groups) - the reason ... at the" Slav-Wahhabi "No Origin, lol (no nationality. No kind. They Saud-Arabized Islamists are sent to terror ....).


I'm busy and too lazy to look up all the references.
but the truth a lot of (50 - 250 thousand) and there is a very large community (websites, groups, public, account group)
 
My friend, I am contesting a case in which my family has won a judgement from High Court in 2003. The other party appealed in Supreme court and got a directive that the case ought to be heard by a Divisional Bench instead of a single judge and that the case be concluded as soon as possible. That was 10 years ago. Aitzaz Ahsan is their lawyer and he has never once appeared in High Court subsequently. He can not defend a fraud, so he would rather delay matters to an extreme.

So I am looking at a situation where 'Rule of Law' is used to subvert justice. No wonder Taliban have some local support. I do not support them. But I do understand that may people are sick and tired of British inspired Byzantine system of jurisprudence in Pakistan.

We Pakistanis really should not point fingers at others. We support corruption, or at least tolerate it, and then we have the guts (or hypocrisy) to blame others.

Justice delayed is justice denied. That is well known. Rule of Law is not possible without timely provision of justice.
 
@Developereo

OK, I thought you were referring to something else. There were multiple conversations going on and, if you don't indicate which particular post you are quoting, I can't know to which conversation you are referring.

Another poster had implied that these people are guilty, and I thought you were referring to it.

As for your example, it comes back to the simple premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. You guys are working backwards and assuming that, if the police detain someone, then that person must prove their innocence.

So I stand by my statement that, barring a conviction, these people should be viewed as innnocent.

No problem, happens to everyone.
Anyway, we were talking on whether the arrest is indication of being guilty, which I said is true in my opinion. Indication is not the same as automatically branded as guilty. Of course for all legal intents and purposes a person is innocent until proven otherwise.

Uh no. It only seems that way to you because you may not understand which part of "due process" is being violated. Note this amendment to NDAA:

Another amendment from Virginia’s Bob Goodlatte that would require the government to provide definitive evidence that a detainee was an enemy combatant also passed

All along here, we have been talking about the authorities having to justify continued detention, and this amendment requires them to do so.

Yes, there is a need to provide some evidence to a judge in Russia as well, however as I said many times before there is no obligation to make the evidence public. So the fact there is no public evidence is irrelevant. In both cases the Subject could not be getting a trial at all. Providing some evidence is not the same as providing enough evidence to convict the person.

No, I am not saying that Russian police would break their own laws. However, as I indicated, unless there is imminent danger, police usually don't interrupt prayers at a religious place. It amounts to harassment to keep doing such raids and mass detentions during prayer. Especially, when most of the people are not violent criminals or terrorists, and are released subsequently anyway.

Still there is zero evidence that those people were arrested during prayers, actually there is indication to the contrary. All we know is that they were arrested in a place used for prayers, as I said it could be immediately before or after. Or maybe those people were sheltering there. Since you have based that whole paragraph on the "fact" the arrest was during prayers I see no reason to comment farther.

Are you saying Reuters made up the specific quote by Putin as part of a conspiracy against him?

No conspiracy, but it is too common for news papers to post quotes by unnamed persons to publish rumors, or information from questionable sources. Many times when such quotes are made after the fact the information is proven baseless or entirely fictitious. Each individual has to make his own choice what to believe and to what extent, so I take such sources with a huge grain of salt and never rely on them. But as I said, it's a personal choice and if you do have a habit of believing such sources than I'll just accept it.
Well, now that I've stated what I believe I hope you would do the same. It's helpful to know what kind of sources the other would accept since I like to base my claims on external sources.


To sum up, there is no problem detaining large numbers when necessary even when most of them are not suspects, to find the suspects who hide in the crowd. As long as there is no better alternative and the innocent detainees are released quickly. In fact this happens all over the world in demonstrations. While I agree that arrests during prayers should be avoided there Mosque itself should not have special treatment.
Schools have special treatment because children are tender, religious reasons are best reserved for religious countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But as I said, it's a personal choice and if you do have a habit of believing such sources than I'll just accept it.
Well, now that I've stated what I believe I hope you would do the same. It's helpful to know what kind of sources the other would accept since I like to base my claims on external sources.

The claim is by Reuters and Putin, as an ex-KGB agent, has been at pains to promote a tough-guy image, so the quote is very much in character, hence believable.
 
I think Russian should respect the rights of Muslims and give them equal opportunities in Public and private sector.
 
Back
Top Bottom