USA.. where the S is for Sharia

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What about the Rights of gun owners and peaceful assembly? I would bet zillions that if we held a peaceful, armed million gun owner march on Washington that we would be more than harrased. I bet that Obama and Co. would somehow "forget" that it is WELL within our RIGHTS to do EXACTLY that.

EVERYONE RIGHTS should be protected. Not the hit and miss so-called protection that is going on today.

Funny how so many scream about protection of Rights for one group but scorn the Rights of others.

ANY religion has the right to assemble. NO religion has the RIGHT to advocate dis-mantling the Constitution. Obama and Co. are trying but it is NOT LEGAL for them to do so. Stand up for your and everyone else's rights or no one will have any soon.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
What about the Rights of gun owners and peaceful assembly? I would bet zillions that if we held a peaceful, armed million gun owner march on Washington that we would be more than harrased. I bet that Obama and Co. would somehow "forget" that it is WELL within our RIGHTS to do EXACTLY that.

EVERYONE RIGHTS should be protected. Not the hit and miss so-called protection that is going on today.

Funny how so many scream about protection of Rights for one group but scorn the Rights of others.

ANY religion has the right to assemble. NO religion has the RIGHT to advocate dis-mantling the Constitution. Obama and Co. are trying but it is NOT LEGAL for them to do so. Stand up for your and everyone else's rights or no one will have any soon.

Are you for real, what's this got to do with Obama, seriously? On the topic of gun owners wanting to assemble and march on Washington you have every right to. Why do you think you would be harrassed? There are peaceful marches and protests everyday in Washington without incident, why would it be any different for gun owners?

Back to my original question, what would you say if it were a Klan meeting and two black males did the same thing you saw in LDB's video he posted?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened during the edited portions. The part I see begins with the people at the booth being hostile and the guy trying to inquire not being hostile. I don't have nearly the patience and at this late hour don't have the time to write a short story reply. The condensed version is I see more wrong with the people in the booth than the guy asking questions. I see FAR more wrong with the actions of the security people. They committed assault and battery.

If this were a Klan booth and black people were attempting to ask questions about printed material provided in the booth there would be no difference in the right and wrong of it if the Klan security people acted the same way.

If it were an NAACP booth and a couple of WASP's were attempting to ask questions about printed material provided in the booth it would be no different if it were black security people. When the security people physically assault those in attendance there is a problem and it has nothing to do with who they are. When there are a dozen or more security people making a mob against 2 or 3 people there is a problem.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
witness,

Thanks for your kind words.

And if you are wondering, I am a Christian,
Well no, I wasn't really ...... I actually don't think much about whether someone is a this, or a that ..... I just try to deal with others on the basis of what they say, and far, far more importantly, on what they actually do.

Of course, if the subject comes up I don't ignore it, or fail to recognize and acknowledge it .....

I like what these men are doing, I just don't agree with the manner in which they are doing it.
I understand - I don't necessarily like what they are doing (attempting to "prove" why theirs is the one, true correct faith, and doing so, not solely on the basis on the merits of their religion, but thru making other religions wrong) ....

Me thinks their time could be spent on far more constructive purposes .... I would think an interfaith dialog towards some mutual activity about doing something beneficial for society at large, would be more in lines with the actual tenets of most any religion I am aware of.

But make no mistake - I absolutely detest and abhor the manner in which they are doing it. Simply because, in my estimation, the motivation, the intention, although not necessarily overt, is to harness and intimidate.

However, folks are certainly free, in this country at least, to prosthelytize for their religion - provided they don't infringe on the rights of others ..... personally I wouldn't have it any other way.

With that said let me ask this question to those that are "appalled" by this video, what if this was an assembly of the Klan and 2 Black persons with video cameras wanted to ask some "questions" and they were treated identically the way these men were? Would you be appalled by the Klan's behavior or would you say that the Klan had every right to have them escorted of the premises where they had permission to assemble? Just a simple question.
I would say that the Klan would be within their rights to have an assembly or gathering without having it interfered with by others opposed to them.

However, as far as the videotaping goes, it might be somewhat different in the case of the Klan - if you talking about videotaping someone whose wearing a robe and hood, where their actual identity is hidden.

If you are talking about a booth set up at an event such as the one portrayed in the video, where peoples' faces are uncovered and they can be identified then that is different.

I view the latter case as being more egregious than the former.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Funny how so many scream about protection of Rights for one group but scorn the Rights of others.
I'm happy to scream about the rights of ANY group, and more importantly, any individual.

If I fail to do so, please spare no effort to remind me.

NO religion has the RIGHT to advocate dis-mantling the Constitution.
That is probably true from a legal basis - mostly due to religions tax-exampt status as 501(c)(3) organizations - they are prohibited for engaging in political campaigns in favor of one candidate or another (or activities which could be construed as such) The law is somewhat gray on exactly what is and isn't prohibited.

However it is absolutely the case that any person, as an individual has the right to advocate dis-mantling the Constitution - indeed, those who founded this country seemed to contemplate exactly that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Are you for real, what's this got to do with Obama, seriously?
Yeeaah .... pretty much my thoughts as well.

Layout, you're kinda becoming a one-trick pony on Obama and this armed march on Washington ..... please try and keep it at least peripherally related to the topic at hand.

On the topic of gun owners wanting to assemble and march on Washington you have every right to. Why do you think you would be harrassed? There are peaceful marches and protests everyday in Washington without incident, why would it be any different for gun owners?
Because what Layout is positing is an armed march on Washington, in opposition to the duly elected government in power.

While I would agree that citizens have the right to do this, I would also say that doing so wouldn't be real bright .... for a whole host of reasons that ought to fairly evident to any sane, rational human being.

With any right also comes responsibilities, probably the first responsibility in the case of the right to keep and bear arms is to act intelligently .... and not get all chest-thumpin' frothy and head off for Pennsylvania Avenue or the Capitol.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I only mentioned being a Christian so that I would not be mistaken for Muslim, Middle Eastern or anything else other than a Christian, where my views on this thread may be questioned or misconstrued.

I am not the best in articulating my words threw the computer so I apologize, maybe I should have made my question more precise. I am not questioning if the Klan can gather or not, or if two black men should be videotaping, or if the Klansmen are hooded or not. I am asking you to replace the Arab Festival with a Klan assembly in a park somewhere if you will and the two Christians videotaping, replace them with two black men videotaping the gathering. And the two black men being treated the same way as the original video shows. First, would LDB even have posted it here, would the people here on EO had the same responses as they did, would they be ranting about suing the Klansmen for "assault and battery", etc, etc.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened during the edited portions.
On this point at least, you are correct. And it is not a small point.

However there is a little more to it than that - it's a bit more involved:

You really don't know what all actually occurred even during the portions which were taped - simply because you could only observe what is taking place from a single viewpoint - the camera's - and you are not even getting all of that viewpoint - only the parts that the editor wanted you to see.

(In a couple of instances, there was footage from more than a single camera, which is helpful - although that too is edited)

I wonder what we might have seen, had one of the parties in the booth, or the security guards, had a camera as well .....

The part I see begins with the people at the booth being hostile and the guy trying to inquire not being hostile.
Yeah ..... that's might be how it seems to appear .... although I didn't find the individual to be all that hostile - maybe slightly annoyed initially ....

Ever wonder what happened prior to that ?

You might try viewing the clip linked below - which purports to be the unedited, or raw, footage that the video was edited from (or at least some of it)

It should become readily apparent to any reasonable and sane individual, with only the most meager ability to observe, that Mr. Qureshi's purpose and intent was to try and put a man's religion - the tenets of his faith - on trial ...... just curious - how would you feel if someone were to do that to you ?

Just walk up to you and start interrogating you - while videotaping you, no less - without asking permission, or without bothering to discuss with you what he intended to do with the footage that he was acquiring ?

Please note that initially the first individual encountered does not appears to be hostile - Mr Qureshi et al comes walking up to a guy wanting to interrogate .... errr I mean ask him questions .... and the very first thing that happens is that the man indicates that he does not wish to be videotaped, and asks that the camera be turned off.

Indeed, even Mr Qureshi himself repeatedly asks the cameraperson to stop taping, saying "If they tell you to stop taping, stop taping" ..... a rather odd command to give, considering elsewhere in the edited version, Mr. Qureshi claims to have spoken with police and that they assured him that to tape these folks is not illegal, and he apparently thinks he has a right (implied) to interrogate this folks about their religion while videotaping them (a somewhat dubious assertion, if ever there was one .....) ..... one wonders if the instructions to stop taping were only for appearances sakes, and whether there was a prior agreement that they would be ignored ....

Despite all that, the individual with the camera continues taping - despite having been told to stop ....

One of the things you will see on the footage (which BTW, I have not viewed all of - I have a run and have to leave in a minute) is that Mr. Quershi says he wants to ask about their pamphlet - but that isn't actually what he does at all ..... he pulls out the Koran and wants to grill them on that :eek:

The guy - Qureshi - appears to be inherently dishonest.

I have little doubt this event set the tone for whatever followed:

Raw, unedited footage

LDB - I'll deal with the rest of your post when I get a chance.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I only mentioned being a Christian so that I would not be mistaken for Muslim, Middle Eastern or anything else other than a Christian, where my views on this thread may be questioned or misconstrued.
Got it - thought that might be the case. I merely responded as I did as a consequence of you saying "And if you were wondering ...."

While you and I may disagree about the merits of Mr. Qureshi's purpose and "mission", I am glad that you see a problem with his methods .... that alone is at least some small reason for hope, in a climate where general insanity and knee-jerk reactions seem to otherwise prevail.

One should make no mistake about it - the consequences of producing such a video and then ensuring that it is as widely distributed as this one was does absolutely nothing whatsoever toward furthering understanding and tolerance of peoples of different races, ethnicities, and religions.

Indeed, it does exactly the opposite - it fosters misunderstanding and promotes intolerance.

It is of no benefit whatsoever to society at large.

I am not the best in articulating my words threw the computer so I apologize,
No need - you seem plenty articulate to me.

First, would LDB even have posted it here, would the people here on EO had the same responses as they did, would they be ranting about suing the Klansmen for "assault and battery", etc, etc.
One can only wonder .... perhaps they too qualify as "undesirables" as well (along with the Blacks and God-knows-what/who-else ....) that need to be "driven out" .......

Dunno about you, but that sounds just a little too much like "ethnic cleansing" to me .... something I'm not much of a fan of - after having reviewed and edited hours upon hours (in the 100's) of video footage from Sudan of the consequences of it, for Voice of the Martyrs and other Christian ministries.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The condensed version is I see more wrong with the people in the booth than the guy asking questions.
No surprise there I guess .... :rolleyes:

But then I'd rather imagine that you "would see something wrong" with the people in the booth ..... whether or not Qureshi and company were present or not .....

I see FAR more wrong with the actions of the security people. They committed assault and battery.
Well actually, if you want to get really technical about it, Mr. Qureshi was the first to commit a simple assault (defined as, as little as merely violating another's personal space by getting inside of an arm's reach of someone else) .... although he would likely not be convicted as:

A. there isn't a prosecutor alive that would be willing to file charges on it, and

B. it would be excused under a de minimis standard (de minimis meaning that the law is not interested in trivial matters - which it certainly was)

However:

"Modern American statutes define assault as:
an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,
negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon."


I didn't see anything that would meet the above definition, although there was a claim of someone being tripped - and as far as I know there isn't any footage to show what actually happened.

On the matter of battery:

Yes, you are correct - the security guards did commit what is known as a tortious battery (<-- click link for info) which could be pursued civilly (probably won't happen - given the likelihood of them being countersued) - but likely not criminal battery, a prosecutable offense .... I'd guess that charging even simple battery would be a stretch for the local prosecutor:

"At common law, simple battery is a misdemeanor. The prosecutor must prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
an unlawful application of force
to the person of another
resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching."

"Under modern statutory schemes, battery is often divided into grades that determine the severity of punishment. For example:
Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused. Criminal battery requires an intent to inflict an injury on another, as distinguished from a tortious battery.
Aggravated battery generally is seen as a serious offense of felony grade, involving the loss of the victim's limb or some other type of permanent disfigurement. As successor to the common-law crime of mayhem, this is sometimes subsumed in the definition of aggravated assault."


The acts of touching the camera equipment was .... rather unwise ..... personally I view it as fairly trivial, in as far as the equipment was apparently not broken or damaged, there didn't appear to be any physical contact with the actual body of a person ..... and in light of the fact that these folks were asked, by the hired security (which obviously weren't all Arab - no way to ascertain anyone's religion of course) to leave a public event - likely because they were being disruptive - and they were actually attempting to resist doing so .....

I think that there are at least five different videos of Mr. Qureshi's little outing - all of which contain unique material I believe - an indication that he wasn't just there for only the relatively short duration of the video whose link you posted. Indeed, he himself mentions that he had been there the previous day in some of the footage. This crew was looking for trouble, and probably having found none, decided to create a little of their own.

What the security guys really should have done was to called the police over, and explained to them that these guys were disturbing the peace and causing a disruption and asked to have them arrested and formally charged. The police probably would have told Qureshi to move it along .... and he would have gotten lucky.

One only needs to listen with open ears at how quickly Qureshi et al were crying "We're being assaulted !" .... me thinks they doth protest just a wee bit too much .... the "reason" they resisted was to create a confrontation and illicit a reaction .... they certainly succeeded in doing that.

Make no mistake - Qureshi et al caused what happened - they had multiple opportunities to stop filming when asked and didn't, and they had multiple opportunities to leave when asked to do so ... and still didn't.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'd rather imagine that you "would see something wrong" with the people in the booth ..... whether or not Qureshi and company were present or not .....

First, you should temper your imagination, it is taking you to places that don't exist. I would have no problem with them or anyone else until they demonstrated to me there should be a problem. Second, the security should have called the official police and had them escorted out rather than forming a mob and engaging in mob activity. As I said, I don't care if it was that security group, Klan, ACLU, NAACP, Muslim, Budhist, Catholic, Protestant, Morman or any other group. What I saw was mob violence albeit on a milder level than most mobs but there none the less. Case closed.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"Because what Layout is positing is an armed march on Washington, in opposition to the duly elected government in power.

While I would agree that citizens have the right to do this, I would also say that doing so wouldn't be real bright .... for a whole host of reasons that ought to fairly evident to any sane, rational human being.

With any right also comes responsibilities, probably the first responsibility in the case of the right to keep and bear arms is to act intelligently .... and not get all chest-thumpin' frothy and head off for Pennsylvania Avenue or the Capitol."

I was NOT suggesting an overthrow of the government. I am OPPOSED to this current resident of the White House but wish him no harm. I just wish him out of office and much sooner that 2012. I AM opposed to this administrations actions against the Constitution, include his opposition to the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment is there to insure that we have the largest standing army in the world. That fact alone greatly affect the Japanese and the Germans during WWII. When asked why the Japanese did NOT press an attack against the main land US they stated that ONE of the reasons was having to face an armed nation. The reason to march armed is to teach this administration and the current congress of the reason of that amendment since they have never learned history. One thing is always true, whimps lose. We either stand up or give up. It IS that simple.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
First, you should temper your imagination,
Temper ? ..... my words perhaps ...... my imagination .... never ..... :D

it is taking you to places that don't exist. I would have no problem with them or anyone else until they demonstrated to me there should be a problem.
Sorry Leo .... I'm not some newly laid off autoworker, who just signed up on EO two weeks ago ...... I've been around long enough to have read many of your previous posts .... :p

Second, the security should have called the official police and had them escorted out
Hmmm ... interesting point .... I believe that I said that in the post you just replied to.

At any rate though, I'm just wondering one thing - what if .... just what if ... some (or maybe all ?) of the Security guys are "official police" - not on-duty ones of course, but off-duty cops that were hired to provide security for this event ?

Would that change it any for ya ..... mebbe cast things in a bit different light ?
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I was NOT suggesting an overthrow of the government.
I didn't suggest that you were.

I am OPPOSED to this current resident of the White House but wish him no harm.
As am I.

I just wish him out of office and much sooner that 2012.
Well barring some extraordinary circumstances, that isn't likely to happen. One thing I can say with some degree of certainty, an armed march by gun owners on Washington - particularly one of any significant size - is far more likely to result in Obama staying in office longer, rather than shorter.

I AM opposed to this administrations actions against the Constitution, include his opposition to the Bill of Rights.
As am I.

The Second Amendment is there to insure that we have the largest standing army in the world.
Huh ?

What - is that in the Federalist Papers ?

The reason to march armed is to teach this administration and the current congress of the reason of that amendment since they have never learned history.
Ya figger that will do it eh ?

One thing is always true, whimps lose.
Collorary to the above:

No amount of force is an acceptable or workable substitute for intelligence (not "intel" intelligence, but smarts) - a good strategy, well executed, can, and often does, win, over a greater force.

We either stand up or give up. It IS that simple.
Yeah ?

Well, before you "stand up" ya might wanna take a little time and figure what 'zactly yer gonna do once you are on your feet.

Cause right now it don't appear that ya got diddly-squat for a strat ..... and chest-thumpin' ain't gonna get ya the brass ring.
 

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
Originally the thread was about Sharia law. Well hopefully the US will take a stand against it. The Ontario govt almost passed an allowance for Sharia councils to handle domestic problems in the Muslim communities here but got a lot of opposition, not only from Christian and legal groups but also from Muslim women who do not want Sharia Law as it is extremely biased in its decision structure towards men.

We have a town called Richmond Hill just north of Toronto where the Muslim community has grown large and fast. They keep to themselves, do mix with the others in the neighbourhood and make the other residents feel unwelcome in the parks and other community places. I know a couple of families who moved because of this. This is one area that wanted Sharia Law invoked to settle divorce and other family problems.

One note about Muslims and keeping the old ways is a recent incident near Kingston of 3 teenage girls of one family and an older woman all killed in a faked car accident. The father of the girls, his second wife and the oldest son were all arrested for what appears to be an honour killing. The girls wanted to be more like north american kids and do the things our kids do etc. BTW the older woman was the fathers first wife which he misrepresented to immigration as a cousin. He wanted to get rid of her according to her relatives.

Should we allow for a religious based law separate to our constitution or yours? No way! Our laws are the laws of the country/state and we should treat all equally with no one religion getting a free pass to practice old world policies.

Remember these Muslims came to our countries for the freedoms and safety we provide our citizens. This means that they should conform to some of our ways of life. I'm not saying give up their religion but as we all know over time religions and attitudes change. God will forgive us for making some accommodations to give our children a decent chance at life.
Rob
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT,

I don't think I am making my self as clear as I should be. I do that a lot. Obama AND the ENTIRE elected government, legally or otherwise, needs to be reminded that in OUR form of government the POWER resides with the PEOPLE and the govenment can only govern IF the PEOPLE allow them too. They have forgotten that. BOTH parties are out of control. They need to be put in their place. The best way is to get rid of them both and start over.

The standing army part is NOT written but intended. The Founders knew that an armed population was far less likely to be threatend that a passive one. They wanted a powerful population.

As to what I am or am not doing, you have no idea. We have no argument and basicly agree on most things. I just don't like to sit and wait for things to get worse. The longer we allow this corruption to go on the harder it will be to dislodge it. The idea of the armed march is to put the so-called elected officials on notice, that we ARE taking back our Right to control THEM!! In this Country, at least in the America I knew, the power flows from the People DOWN to the government and they are ALLOWED to govern ONLY if we choose to let them.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
At any rate though, I'm just wondering one thing - what if .... just what if ... some (or maybe all ?) of the Security guys are "official police" - not on-duty ones of course, but off-duty cops that were hired to provide security for this event ?

Would that change it any for ya ..... mebbe cast things in a bit different light ?

Yes, that actually would change things for me. If they are off duty "official police" then I'd call for them to be fired from their job as well as prosecuted for assault. I don't care who they are and I don't care who the camera people were and I don't care what the camera people did. Hitting the camera people was assault. If they were "official police" they should have told the majority of the mob to back off, shown their "official police" credentials and handled it correctly without assaulting anyone.

Oh, and I know you've read my posts but don't imagine I have a problem with someone just because of who they are. I don't care about that until they give legitimate reason to have a problem with them.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Yes, that actually would change things for me.
I figured it might.

If they are off duty "official police" then I'd call for them to be fired from their job as well as prosecuted for assault.
I also figured that that might be the case as well. :D

Clearly they need to be prosecuted - afterall, the level of violence that they exerted (tapping and touching cameras) was certainly at least comparable to - if not wildly exceeding - the Rodney King beatings ..... right ?

In fact, at least three of security guards on the tape are off-duty cops. I have no idea whether any of the others were as well - but it sure wouldn't surprise me - given the inclination for event organizers to hire such.

My evidence for this follows, along with some explanation of the events - so that one might see that what is claimed isn't always what actually took place:

During the first Inquisition, near the beginning of the tape (starting at 00:50) there is a crawl run across the bottom of the screen stating that the camera person has been "forced" to stop taping (as though someone reached out and actually took the camera persons hand and hit the "STOP" button - which doesn't appear to be the case) This occurs shortly after the camera person has been instructed by Qureshi: "If they tell you to stop taping, then stop taping ...."

Ignoring that instruction - and the pleas from the security person to stop taping (who is off-camera, but can be heard), the camera person continues to tape - and surprise ! - apparently a security person attempts to enforce what the cameraperson didn't have enough self-control to do - stop the taping by blocking the front of the camera ..... so that any footage acquired would be essentially useless (but leave it to the good boys and girls at Acts17 Apologetics to come up with a way to twist that into something other than what it probably was ....)

It is claimed that the security person that did this "grabbed the front of the camera and pulled it down" and "hit the LCD" - while that very well could be true, there isn't anything in the edited footage to indicate that it did indeed happen - nor is there any other footage from another camera showing it - and you better believe that had there been such footage, it would have been used to show exactly what happened - it would have made for a perfect edit (cutting to the footage showing a person actually grabbing the camera and hitting the LCD) and would have fit right in with the agenda of those who were clearly interested in stirring up trouble at this event.

If you listen - very very carefully - to the video when Qureshi is walking up to the three security guards (around 01:08) you can hear a couple of things that the camera's mic picked up:

The first thing is right after he asks them if they are security (something one would think would be blatantly obvious - given the fact that they were all wearing shirts with the word "SECURITY" on the front .... but given the state of some people's inability to observe the obvious I suppose it is not surprising)

Not to be too stereotypical or anything, but most folks that have viewed the video have probably noticed that these three gentleman did not look like what one would typically think of as "Arab" or "Middle Eastern" ... reason for that is: they probably aren't ....

The thing that Qureshi says immediately after asking them if they are Security and receiving a reply from one (at 01:11 or thereabouts), is very, very interesting though - listen carefully - Quershi asks:

"You're policemen ?"

The reason I bring this up, is that if Security (some or all) are in fact off-duty cops that have been hired to provide security for this event, it might cast things in a somewhat different light (for some at least) ...... at that point it isn't just a "mob" of Arab/Middle Easterners/Muslims - it may well be a bunch of off-duty cops, who I would venture to guess are used to being obeyed and complied with, when they give an order to folks that seem quite intent on creating a public disturbance.

Another indication that these are in fact off-duty policemen comes slightly later in the tape (around 01:25) - where Qureshi says "We talked to the police earlier ..." and then adds, as an afterthought, without skipping a beat: ".... not you guys .... we talked to police in uniforms" - meaning of course, actual on-duty officers.

During the questioning of the anglo security guard in the blue shirt, where Qureshi is asking if they can "go and ask questions" (which wasn't what they were doing at all) and "videotape" you can hear one of the security guards, who is not in the frame and off-camera say (at 01:32), in reply:

"Not if you are going to agitate ...."

Immediately after that statement on the part of the police officer, Qureshi looks down at the ground, averting his eyes from the gaze of the officer that he speaking to, all while trying to maintain that no, he isn't going to agitate .... shyeah, right ..... .... too funny ....

In this case, a picture is truly worth a thousand words .....

Despite that admonition, Qureshi et al continue with their activities - which are designed to do precisely that - agitate and stir up trouble where none exists, at what I would gather is largely a peaceful public event, which is attended by folks of all races and religions.

To understand the context in which all this is occurring, one should understand that there was apparently one Christian group who wanted to pass out literature at this event - and was barred by order of a Federal Court from doing so. They were allowed to pass out their literature, but they were assigned to a segregated space, next to but apart from the actual festival apparently.

Evidently that wasn't good enough ..... and they tried to come up with a way to get around what they were prohibited by Federal Court order from doing ..... by going into the festival and attempting to do on-camera street trials of people in regards to their religious beliefs ..... and yes, you're right - that certainly should be enough to make anyone puke .....

In fact, it is my understanding there is apparently another video (there are a number of Acts17 videos relating to this event out there - at least 5 I think - which contain somewhat different footage) in which Mr. Qureshi's associate .... a Mr. Woods I think it is .... is apparently shown with some of the literature that they were barred from passing out. One wonders exactly why Mr. Woods would have that in his possession, at the festival, in light of the Federal Court order.

And one wonders how things might have gotten to a such state where a Federal Court order was sought to bar some group from this festival .....

I don't know the entire history surrounding this event and what has occurred in the past, but based on what I have seen thus far, it is not a far stretch to consider the possibility that perhaps during past events Qureshi, or those of his ilk, not being content with just being able to pass out literature from a booth, engaged in actions which were potentially disruptive - such as going to other's booths and arguing and agitating.

The event is designed to be a celebration of a culture. All cultures have their flaws, as well as their redeeming values ....

It's only when rabid fanatics - such as those producing this video - who will often stop at nothing to enforce their belief system on others - show up that things usually start to turn ugly.

What makes the society in which these individuals exist civilized is something that escapes them entirely - the rights of others, beyond themselves, just isn't anywhere on their radar screen .....

Of course, Boobus americanus sees such things as just fine and dandy ..... afterall, it is their "right" ..... yeeaah .....
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, you see what you see and call it one thing and I see it and call it something else. Your taps are my slaps/smacks whatever. Comparing it to Rodney King is ridiculous. As I said, it was mild as these things go. I also said they should have brought in a uniformed officer. S/he should have instructed them to turn the camera off, remove the battery, pocket the battery, point the camera at the ground and leave, all without any violence or assault. If they failed to comply they could have been escorted off in the arms of an on duty uniformed police officer rather than herded off by a mob surrounding them menacingly.

I never said it was a Muslim mob or Arab mob or Hyphen-American mob (something that doesn't exist). I said it was a mob. Period. No qualifiers. I said they engaged in mob actions and mild mob violence. You seem determined to paint me as Archie Bunker so I guess that would make you Meathead and we somehow misplaced Edith and Gloria somewhere. Maybe they went off to Maude and Walter's.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This Arab Festival is a very public event and has been going on for fourteen years. Arab Detroit - News
The particular display that was approached by the Acts 17 group seemed to invite questions, declaring that they had answers. I just don't see the insidious behaviour on the part of the Apologetics that is claimed in some of these posts. Granted, it might be seen as somewhat intrusive; however, the people that sponsored this booth should have been prepared for anyone from the news media or other organizations that might have shown up with cameras or video equipment wanting to do interviews or "ask questions." Instead of hustling the Apologetics off the premesis with security guards in t-shirts, they should have escorted them to an appropriate location to discuss their concerns with a press agent or spokesperson prepared to deal with them. The Muslims could have easily used the situation to portray themselves on video as peace loving citizens against terrorism and their radical bretheren, just as their pamphlet advertised. Instead, they appear to be surly, defensive and unwilling to engage these Christians in any sort of meaningful dialogue.

We don't know what kind of activities by Acts 17 might have occurred previously off camera; also, we don't know from these YouTube videos or any of the posts what the Muslim agenda was during this public event. We don't see the Sharia philosophy mentioned, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being promoted in some form. We also don't see the Apologetics acting like rabid, drooling fanatics even though they might have done so previously and off camera. However, if that had been the case it's safe to assume they would have already been escorted out and banned from returning. To claim that video taping might be illegal at a public event like this is a real stretch; ever seen 60 Minutes or 20-20? These and other investigative programs do it to private individuals all the time, both openly and covertly. And to compare this videotaping to intrusion on a private family outing is absurd. And "on camera street trials"? Give me a break. I'll say again: the Arab groups should have been better prepared to deal with groups like Acts 17 - this is not the first year they've been in attendance.

It's interesting to see how the liberal mindset works - on the one hand denying the benefit of doubt to this Christian group, but on the other allow it to the Muslims/Arabs. Gratuitous assumptions and assertions are made in abundance in the effort to discredit the Christians. Any conflicting opinion is labeled as Hate and disregarded as lacking intelligence and reason in the attempt to deflect any counterpoint. Those conservatives with conflicting viewpoints are dismissed as being relics that should have been residents of the USSR. Perhaps the source of this enlightenment would be more at home in France.
 
Top