Anti-White, Anti-Christian Bigotry Marches On

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Just the newest .

Update: NZ Mosque Killer a Socialist, Ecoterrorist, Who Praises Commie China and Condemns Conservatism… Media Calls him a Trump Supporter

NOTHING honest in the MSM fake news

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Sure looks like I triggered the tards!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

So who is going to "keep an eye on" these white gangs who call themselves "militias".These scumbags ar operating in full view. Who is attacking you in Michigan? Any police reports where you have called for help because you are being attacked? Under seige?

You dont think they're being watched?
What a fuken idiot!!!

 

[Montrovant]

A few in every mosque, huh? I wonder what you base that assertion on, specifically?

Regardless, the government is certainly not supposed to assume that any mosque in the US contains terrorists and therefore not provide police protection.

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

 

[Montrovant]

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

So I guess you're against the common sense application of criminal profiling.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

ALl of your threads reveal your contempt and hate for this country.

You know there was a time I might have gotten upset by you posting what you know are lies about me. But because I've been studying you all for the last year, I know that you're attempting to paint me in a false light, perhaps as a subversive or someone who needs to be on one of the U.S.'s shit lists.

You're too late, better people than yourself have tried. And failed.

If you wnat to end up on Assholes.com like they are, keep lying about me.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Which terrorists were getting police protection? Are you trying to say all Muslims are terrorists?

Not all of em obviously.
But I'd bet there's a few of em in every mosque.

A few in every mosque, huh? I wonder what you base that assertion on, specifically?

Regardless, the government is certainly not supposed to assume that any mosque in the US contains terrorists and therefore not provide police protection.

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

And that would be unconstitutional, but I think you all already know that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Isn't that what they claimed they were doing in Florida when the police caught Patriot's owner Kraft with their hidden cameras, paying for sex? You think everyone there was doing that and deserved to be under surveillance.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not all of em obviously.
But I'd bet there's a few of em in every mosque.

A few in every mosque, huh? I wonder what you base that assertion on, specifically?

Regardless, the government is certainly not supposed to assume that any mosque in the US contains terrorists and therefore not provide police protection.

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

And that would be unconstitutional, but I think you all already know that.

Watching over a group of people who are known to be terrorist is unconstitutional?
But I bet you're fine and dandy with surveilling militia groups.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A few in every mosque, huh? I wonder what you base that assertion on, specifically?

Regardless, the government is certainly not supposed to assume that any mosque in the US contains terrorists and therefore not provide police protection.

But you cant tell me there aren't.

I can't tell you that there aren't a few terrorists in every church or synagogue or any house of worship in the country. It's impossible to know for certain.

Look, I'm not claiming that Islam isn't the biggest religious driver of terrorism in the world today. Based on everything I've seen, it certainly is. I'm not going to assume every mosque in the country contains a terrorist, though.

Error on the side of caution.
I think every mosque in the country should be under surveillance.

And that would be unconstitutional, but I think you all already know that.

Watching over a group of people who are known to be terrorist is unconstitutional?
But I bet you're fine and dandy with surveilling militia groups.

Why would you think that a member of the ACLU would be okay with blanket surveillance of any group?

In order to obtain a warrant to place a person, location, device, etc. under surveillance you need to be able to articulate "with specificity" a valid legal basis for the surveillance. Being Muslim is not a "valid legal reason".

 

[Montrovant]

I'm much less comfortable with increasing government surveillance on citizens or legal immigrants without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Simply being in a mosque is not reasonable suspicion.

The government already appears to engage in too much surveillance of citizens.

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

So I guess you're against the common sense application of criminal profiling.

If what you call "common sense" either violates the law or the Constitutional protections every citizen enjoys, then yes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Since muslimes are prone to hiding weapons in mosques and are known to be terrorist I believe that gives us the right to keep an eye on em.

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

So I guess you're against the common sense application of criminal profiling.

If what you call "common sense" either violates the law or the Constitutional protections every citizen enjoys, then yes.

So you're the guy who would be offended if they put out a BOLA on a black dude.....

 

[Montrovant]

Hiding weapons in mosques is something "muslimes [sic] are prone to," is it?

There have been known Christian terrorists, does that mean we have a right to keep an eye on them, too? Shall we just have the government set up cameras in every house of worship in the country?

Hey, I bet there have been terrorists who were Democrats, too! And Republicans! Let's put cameras in all political offices, meetings, and rallies for the 2 major parties. We have a right to keep an eye on em, right?

The vast majority of terrorists are men, so I guess we'll have to keep an eye on all the men, right?

Of course, some are women....

I guess we'll just have to let the government keep an eye on everyone.

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

So I guess you're against the common sense application of criminal profiling.

If what you call "common sense" either violates the law or the Constitutional protections every citizen enjoys, then yes.

So you're the guy who would be offended if they put out a BOLA on a black dude.....

If the entire description consisted of "a black dude" I'd be offended at the stupidity of it. Are you trying to find a strawman you can argue effectively against or something?

 

[bodecea]

After thousands of assaults on and murders of white Christians, and Christians of all races, my area in SE Michigan is treated to this double standard

In the parking lot of the Islamic Center of Detroit Friday, a watchful police officer sat in a squad car, keeping an eye out for any signs of potential trouble. Worshippers thanked the officer — offering him food, drinks, a handshake. Inside, Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad greeted congregants with handshakes and hugs. Dearborn is a Detroit suburb with a large Arab and Muslim population.

Haddad said he doesn’t know if houses of worship are more of a target today than in previous times, but the scale and scope of the attacks in New Zealand clearly attracted his attention.

“Given what happened in New Zealand last night, we want to make sure that our community feels safe and secure,” he said.

In Chicago, the Muslim Community Center and the Downtown Islamic Center increased security during Friday prayers. Several armed police officers stood guard outside and inside throughout the afternoon service.

And....

Event hosted by Haleemah Aqel, Mohammad Shaikh, Arwa Gayar and Silan Fadlallah on Facebook here

In the wake of the mosque shootings in New Zealand, the Islamophobia Working Group is holding a solidarity vigil on the Diag in Ann Arbor this Saturday at 4 pm.

All are welcome. Please spread the word so that UM may come together as a community in a time of crisis.

Just keep showing us what CRCs are all about.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Show me one incident where Christians have hidden weapons in churches.
I can show you plenty of instances where muslimes have.

And of course you'll have to point out the last time Christians have used suicide vests and pressure cooker bombs to kill the innocent.

I see. So you only approve of the government serveilling places where terrorists have hidden weapons? Well, I would guess that many of them have hidden weapons in their own homes. Should government be able to look into anyone's home?

How many members of a group have to be involved in terrorism before you think it's fine to "keep an eye on em"? What percentage of a particular population must be involved in terrorist acts for you to consider their Constitutional protections invalid? When does a person become part of a group, rather than an individual with individual rights?

How many suicide vests have been hidden in mosques in the US and used to kill the innocent? Are we going to now target groups of people for the actions of those in entirely different countries?

So I guess you're against the common sense application of criminal profiling.

If what you call "common sense" either violates the law or the Constitutional protections every citizen enjoys, then yes.

So you're the guy who would be offended if they put out a BOLA on a black dude.....

If the entire description consisted of "a black dude" I'd be offended at the stupidity of it. Are you trying to find a strawman you can argue effectively against or something?

I dont give a fuck if they put out a BOLA on a white dude.

 

[bodecea]

Sure looks like I triggered the tards!

That would explain the "likes", "agrees", "funnies" on your posts.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Its the police job to protect terrorist targets.

So why aren't they staking out churches?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Its the police job to protect terrorist targets.

So why aren't they staking out churches?

There are a lot of people who don't have a clue when it comes to the laws they're operating under

‘§ 2712. Civil actions against the United States‘‘
(a) IN GENERAL
—
Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of
chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence
an action in United States District Court againstthe United States to recover
money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved
successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter
119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages
—
‘‘
(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and
‘‘
(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.
‘‘
(b) PROCEDURES
.
—
(1) Any action against the United States under this section may be commenced only after a claim is presented
to the appropriate department or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth in title 28, United States Code.
‘‘
(2) Any action against the United States under this section
shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the
appropriate Federal agency within 2 years after such claim accrues
or unless action is begun within 6 months after the date of mailing,
by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the
claim by the agency to which it was presented. The claim shall
accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable
opportunity to discover the violation.
‘‘
(3) Any action under this section shall be tried to the court
without a jury.
‘‘
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures
set forth in section 106(f), 305(g), or 405(f) of the Foreign Intel-
ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall
be the exclusive means by which materials governed by those sec-
tions may be reviewed.
‘‘
(5) An amount equal to any award against the United States
under this section shall be reimbursed by the department or agency
concerned to the fund described in section 1304 of title 31, United
States Code, out of anyappropriation, fund, or other account
(excluding any part of such appropriation, fund, or account that
is available for the enforcement of any Federal law) that is available
for the operating expenses of the department or agency concerned.
‘‘
(c) ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINE
.
—
If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any
of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court
or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation
raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00024 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 295
PUBLIC LAW 107
–
56
—
OCT. 26, 2001
States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation,
the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct
copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate depart-
ment or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether
disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted.
If the head of the department or agency involved determines that
disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the
Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency
concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons
for such determination.​