• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Muslims Rally To Protest NYPD Surveillance Program

Maybe if the 1% stopped hoarding the cash?

Maybe?

you join the protest, you join the protest :). You don't get to past-tense divide the group between the "real" OWS protestors and the ones making problems simply because the problems are inconvenient.

Yeah, common sense is not useful. Good point.
 
Funny, America is the only country I know of with a constitution that guarantees the rights of its citizen to carry arms in case of a rebellion against the government, basically the founders of this country believe in the possibilities of a citizen uprising in the future, a process which gave birth to the country itself, they wrote the constitutions to protect and prepare the citizens for such a possibility, and you think the OWS camping in a park, making noises, and resisting arrests is "unamerican"?

It's one thing to disagree with the OWS for their demands and purpose, but it's another to say that their protest is "unamerican" because they broke laws, the Civil Rights movement resulted in many activists breaking laws. If you use breaking laws and getting arrested as the measuring stick of a movement, then many of the leaders in the Civil Rights movement would be deemed nothing more than criminals - and in fact that's what many white Americans thought of them.

If the Muslim succeed in getting the objective through, good for them, but what if they can't with civil protests? Should they retire to their houses knowing they have protested and just live with the surveillance anyway? That's what happened with the Iraq War protesters. Is that the "American" thing to do?

I added bold to the line that expresses what I was going to say.

Did the nice little civil protest turn off even a single camera aimed at the Muslim neighbourhood?
 
I added bold to the line that expresses what I was going to say.

Did the nice little civil protest turn off even a single camera aimed at the Muslim neighbourhood?
Probably not, but if it opens a dialogue they did a good job. Another reason I am on their side is that these individuals seem to be honest and respectable and just want to be left alone, if authorities are willing to spy on innocent people of one cultural group they will outsource it eventually. So it is about time to start asserting that these tactics must be retired.
 
You are kind of correct here. The founders most certainly did advocate for rebellion under the most dire circumstances, but that should always be considered a last resort. We are not out of options in this country and I will readily argue that some of the demands I've seen from these protesters while in the context of rebellion address grievances that would infringe on other's liberties, this is where I feel they are engaging in unamerican activities. But it isn't illegal to be unamerican whether people agree with my point of view or not.

I'm questioning the "unamericaness", not whether it's legal or not. American always believe that they have a streak of rebelliousness which makes them special - and to say that protesting in whatever form is "unamerican" seems contradictory to its history. The Boston Tea Party was an act that violated others' property rights - is that "unamerican"?

It's the degree of lawbreaking. If police actions are in question fight them in court, do not threaten their safety by resorting to violence as it won't end well for anyone. The civil rights protesters of the early movement did break some laws, but they did not infringe on the rights of the innocent and they willingly accepted being arrested. The violence came after the assassination of MLK.

MLK himself was judged guilty for being a leader of a boycott - he was arrested, then fined by the judge. To the people whose business were affected, he was infringing on their "liberty" to conduct commerce.

Most of the protestors are non-violent, passive resistance was practiced during the civil rights movement as well.

I think this should be enough to at least open a dialogue, if not there are legal means to get one started such as a civil suit, or otherwise opening up an inquiry within the department. I don't see these people as willing to engage in violence, and their statements do not show the entitlement mentality that some of the OWS protesters presented. Now, if things got horrendous and the muslim community did engage in violence........I dunno, in a way it would be american if it was a last resort and in a way it would be unamerican, the country just kind of works like that.

Like what? So the term "unamaerican" is really just an ad hominem, how can they be american and unamerican at the same?

Protests, and in general being a pain in the arse, is a legitimate form of citizen actions (how else to bring changes when the majority can't be bothered and which the law does not address?), it brings with it consequences, but it's not in anyway "unamerican", I would say according to America's history, it's as american as it comes.
 
I'm questioning the "unamericaness", not whether it's legal or not. American always believe that they have a streak of rebelliousness which makes them special - and to say that protesting in whatever form is "unamerican" seems contradictory to its history. The Boston Tea Party was an act that violated others' property rights - is that "unamerican"?
The main problem is that the particular protesters aren't targeting any one individual or group, and they really haven't been wronged as they think they have. Most of the "american" revolts if we get technical were due to actual provable abuses. These protesters are unwittingly speaking of more government control, americans tend to want the least government as possible.



MLK himself was judged guilty for being a leader of a boycott - he was arrested, then fined by the judge. To the people whose business were affected, he was infringing on their "liberty" to conduct commerce.
Which is why I used the innocent qualifier. The businesses were not innocent, while it is true that the Jim Crowe laws mandated the businesses discriminate if they would have cared to challenge the statutes things would have changed.
Most of the protestors are non-violent, passive resistance was practiced during the civil rights movement as well.
Without a coherent message, also they are not innocent as they stand by and allow those who are of malicious intent to create problems unchecked. Most of these people don't even know what the real issues are and frankly I have no sympathy for their movement.
Like what? So the term "unamaerican" is really just an ad hominem, how can they be american and unamerican at the same?
It's not simply an ad hom. There are things we don't stand for here, and to assert them in such a manner is well.........
Protests, and in general being a pain in the arse, is a legitimate form of citizen actions (how else to bring changes when the majority can't be bothered and which the law does not address?), it brings with it consequences, but it's not in anyway "unamerican", I would say according to America's history, it's as american as it comes.
You never gain sympathy for your cause by pissing people off.
 
To get back to the supposed title of the thread, I am at least somewhat sympathetic toward their cause. I am only hesitant because I do not know hardly anything about the programs in question.
 
Your problem is that you are mixing OWS protesters with people who showed up and camped out because there were events going on. When you have a camp out in public, you're going to get vagrants showing up... obviously.
Not to mention when you have a throng of people that huge they become a target. Societies miscreants, theives, and oppurtunists are giong to seek out this crowd and find easy victims/come-ups. It was funny how because OWS was targeted by theft the media spun it as "OWS are theives."
 
Maybe if the 1% stopped hoarding the cash?

Or more like "Maybe if 1% of the cash stopped usurping the 99%'s votes." Build up as much cash as you personally want. Who cares about being capitalistic. Just stop buying out politicians.
 
To get back to the supposed title of the thread, I am at least somewhat sympathetic toward their cause. I am only hesitant because I do not know hardly anything about the programs in question.
That's exactly my position. I think that if the police are just profiling at random there are implications that all of us could suffer later, but if there is some evidence leading to certain suspects the NYPD has an interest in continuing. I'd like more information on the situation before I were to side one way or the other.
 
Can't believe I had to use HuffPo, but the story is here:
New York Muslims Rally To Protest NYPD Surveillance Program.

Muslims are peacefully protesting the NYPD surveillance programs of mosques, middle eastern establishments such as stores and restaurants, and the profiling of ME cab drivers. I do not know how much of their message I support or do not because I don't know where the line between public safety and privacy needs to be drawn these days as I do not know what tactics the officers are truly using nor do I want to try to make an opinion. What I think is that this is a good discussion about where privacy ends and where profiling is necessary in this particular leg in the fight against terrorist tactics.

Most of these people protesting IMO are innocent of anything but I wanted to share this story because this protest has things that the OWS protesters do not:
1) A clear message- The only complaint is that these people want to be left alone as much as possible, they have said "respect us and we will respect you", they have said they are equally Muslim and American. I can respect this.
2) They have obeyed all laws, engaged in true peaceful assembly and free speech. No laws were broken, and they did not overstay their welcome.
3) No Violence, none whatsoever. They chanted a little, they prayed, they let their feelings be known. And they moved on.

So to summarize. I don't know how much I disagree or agree with these particular protesters but I do support their right to protest in this fashion. Imagine that, they used very American values and tactics in an orderly fashion to opine on what they feel is an injustice and I hope that the issue is resolved in a mutually agreeable fashion.

Take note OWS, THIS is how you protest if you choose to do so.

So is this just a smear piece against OWS because they don't protest how YOU THINK they should protest?
 
So is this just a smear piece against OWS because they don't protest how YOU THINK they should protest?
No, was sharing a seperate protest, but it does show the differences in tactics which is why I posted what I did. The OWS movement is a joke.
 
No, was sharing a seperate protest, but it does show the differences in tactics which is why I posted what I did. The OWS movement is a joke.

So this was just a way to smear OWS, as you continually do it and can't seem to make a post without reference to it.

It's actions, not words that matter. You say it wasn't X, but act in a way to indicate it was X. It's like how some of the "conservative" folk say they want small government, but then they don't support true small government actions. Thus they are big government supporters. They just want to run their mouths and pretend they're still the party of Reagan when they have abandoned those ideals some time ago.
 
So this was just a way to smear OWS, as you continually do it and can't seem to make a post without reference to it.

It's actions, not words that matter. You say it wasn't X, but act in a way to indicate it was X. It's like how some of the "conservative" folk say they want small government, but then they don't support true small government actions. Thus they are big government supporters. They just want to run their mouths and pretend they're still the party of Reagan when they have abandoned those ideals some time ago.
A smear would require telling half-truths to make a point against a political opponent or movement. There is enough criminal activity associated with OWS to make the point stand without any help. Again, I did a compare and contrast to two simultaneous protests. One I may or may not agree with and the other is one that has gone on too long with nothing of substance.
 
A smear would require telling half-truths to make a point against a political opponent or movement. There is enough criminal activity associated with OWS to make the point stand without any help. Again, I did a compare and contrast to two simultaneous protests. One I may or may not agree with and the other is one that has gone on too long with nothing of substance.

A smear merely requires that you do everything you can to cast a certain idea or group or whatever in a negative light whenever you can. You claim it's gone on too long, but that's YOUR PERCEPTION. You aren't god, so there's no reason why we should base law off of your perception of what a "protest" should be. You decided what it should look like and then you attack OWS (even though it had NOTHING to do with the topic) because it didn't match your perception of what protest should be. That's it, and that's why it's smear.
 
A smear merely requires that you do everything you can to cast a certain idea or group or whatever in a negative light whenever you can. You claim it's gone on too long, but that's YOUR PERCEPTION. You aren't god, so there's no reason why we should base law off of your perception of what a "protest" should be. You decided what it should look like and then you attack OWS (even though it had NOTHING to do with the topic) because it didn't match your perception of what protest should be. That's it, and that's why it's smear.
I haven't done anything. They are the ones making news with suicides, murders, assault on police, rapes, and other nuisance and criminal behaviors. I just compared what the muslim protesters did as an aside.
 
I haven't done anything. They are the ones making news with suicides, murders, assault on police, rapes, and other nuisance and criminal behaviors. I just compared what the muslim protesters did as an aside.

Yes, but most of that is not wide spread across the movement, but rather isolated cases which occurred in large population protests through out the country. It's not just one rally in New York, the OWS is a huge nation wide movement with a large number of people participating. People want to point to these crimes and say "See what OWS is doing!", but it's a dumb argument as that is not part of OWS, but rather isolated incidents carried out by some individual.
 
Yes, but most of that is not wide spread across the movement, but rather isolated cases which occurred in large population protests through out the country. It's not just one rally in New York, the OWS is a huge nation wide movement with a large number of people participating. People want to point to these crimes and say "See what OWS is doing!", but it's a dumb argument as that is not part of OWS, but rather isolated incidents carried out by some individual.
Sure, I know that not everyone in the OWS movement is engaging in the illicit activities but it is showing up in most locations and is being tolerated by those in attendance. I don't know about you but if I see someone being victimized in my immediate proximity I will do my best to stop the perpetrator. My point was that some people stereotype muslims as violent or hateful and they protested in a very dignified and civil manner, whereas the OWSers are having some major behavioral issues.
 
Or more like "Maybe if 1% of the cash stopped usurping the 99%'s votes." Build up as much cash as you personally want. Who cares about being capitalistic. Just stop buying out politicians.

Stop selling them.
 
A long time, but I don't recall those happening strictly through occupying a public area and holding drum circles. Sure, sit ins were huge in the 60s, and those accomplished a lot because there were goals behind them. Everyone knew what Rosa Parks was protesting. The OWS movement would be far better off to leave the park, form some sort of committee, come up with a list of actual ideas, and then present them in an orderly fashion.

Can you name one specific thing that would satiate that crowd and cause them to leave? I can't, because I don't even know what they want, but I have a feeling they won't figure it out in the lobby of Deutsche Bank.

OWS reminds me of this: Poor People's Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only not nearly as well-organized.
 
Back
Top Bottom