# Muslim woman punches a photographer in the face, doesn't get charged.



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

> Claiming that her religious rights had been violated, a Muslim woman punched a man in the face after he had photographed her on a busy Toronto intersection.
> 
> The photographer was David Menzies, a popular columnist in Canada who mostly writes about cars.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Aug 5, 2011)

And not a single fuck was given.


----------



## Whitebeard (Aug 5, 2011)

Was the camera alright?


----------



## Hatifnatten (Aug 5, 2011)

This just shows how everyone fears muslim.

"Officer, this woman is clearly guilty, please arrest her."
"But what if those muslim-fellas will do somthin violent? No siree! You run along now".

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2011)

God I hate religion..


----------



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

FairyLaw said:


> Was the camera alright?



As far as I know, it seems to be fine.


----------



## Gecka (Aug 5, 2011)

Nihonjin said:


> God I hate religion..



God says fuck you


----------



## Zaru (Aug 5, 2011)

Personal freedom ends where the freedom of others begins.

Harming someone and his belongings because you personally don't like something he does?

That fucking bitch should get 100 lashes. A punishment much more fitting if she justifies her bullshit by being "muslim" (And no, this is not a muslim issue, she's just a terrible person and the community she's surrounded by probably as well)


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 5, 2011)

To be honest i'd do the same if I was surrounded by 20 people and I  don't have a gun (do officers in canada carry guns?).


----------



## Kei (Aug 5, 2011)

> The photographer was David Menzies, a popular columnist in Canada who mostly writes about cars.He said he was with his nine-year-old son testing out a new camera in Yonge-Dundas Square, a bustling, neon-saturated intersection known as Toronto?s Times Square, when she became enraged.



First off, he wasn't even taking a picture of her but probably cars and it seemed that she misunderstood what he was doing....Using religion as a defense is low


----------



## Zaru (Aug 5, 2011)

If that woman was a shady-looking black guy instead, how would it turn out?


----------



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> To be honest i'd do the same if I was surrounded by 20 people and I  don't have a gun (do officers in canada carry guns?).



Yes they do.

I think if anything, it should be Muslims that are offended by this story.  Those police officers obviously felt that the Muslims were too much of a threat, which would already be placing stereotypes on them.  Everyone should be following the law, not just the majority of the population here.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> If that woman was a shady-looking black guy instead, how would it turn out?



Tased to death probably.



Kue said:


> Yes they do.
> 
> I think if anything, it should be Muslims that are offended by this story.  Those police officers obviously felt that the Muslims were too much of a threat, which would already be placing stereotypes on them.  Everyone should be following the law, not just the majority of the population here.


Well it can be what you're saying or it can be that police officers are people just like us and they don't like to deal with a crazy person.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> If that woman was a shady-looking black guy instead, how would it turn out?


Thread would be called "Police neutralized a drug-dealer suspect. Heavy use of tasers was required".


----------



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

I wonder what would happen also if I punched the photographer and said "you have offended my gayness!"  Do I get to free pass from the law too Toronto Police?


----------



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Well it can be what you're saying or it can be that police officers are people just like us and they don't like to deal with a crazy person.



That could very well be the case as well.


----------



## Xyloxi (Aug 5, 2011)

She should have set herself on fire and Falcon Punched the shit out of him.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 5, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> She should have set herself on fire and Falcon Punched the shit out of him.



I thought only buddhist did that... well minus the falcon punch.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Permission should be taken before taking pictures of people.
I don't care if it's a democracy. Hmph.
If she was a passerby and he's not trying to take a picture of her, he could've explained that, if she didn't get it afterwards then fine.
So what if she says it's because shes muslim right or wrong, not everyone likes there picture being taken, period.

What's supposed to happen, put her in jail over this? Only if we're a bunch of dicks.


----------



## Toroxus (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Personal freedom ends where the freedom of others begins.



/thread        .


----------



## Dandy Elegance (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Personal freedom ends where the freedom of others begins.
> 
> Harming someone and his belongings because you personally don't like something he does?
> 
> That fucking bitch should get 100 lashes. A punishment much more fitting if she justifies her bullshit by being "muslim" (And no, this is not a muslim issue, she's just a terrible person and the community she's surrounded by probably as well)



I like how this is exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

Sometimes, I can't help but think if there's going to be a Hitler for Muslims one day.


----------



## Punpun (Aug 5, 2011)

The norvegian killer ? The neo right ? Geert ? It already exists


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

Punpun said:


> The norvegian killer ? The neo right ? Geert ? It already exists



I mean like, a successful one.


----------



## Dark Kiva (Aug 5, 2011)

wowowowowowowowoowwowoowow why does a group of muslim terrorists or one person make people judge a whole religion, of course i agree what she did was wrong and she had no right, but its not right for people to say "muslim scumbags" and such


----------



## Mathias124 (Aug 5, 2011)

And this is why some people dont like muslims


----------



## Lucaniel (Aug 5, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Sometimes, I can't help but think if there's going to be a Hitler for Muslims one day.





Sephiran said:


> Muslim scumbag.



...there's clearly a religion vs. personal freedom conflict here, but can you manage to express it without instantly coming out with knee-jerk hateful generalisations? it's a little disturbing


----------



## Missc (Aug 5, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Sometimes, I can't help but think if there's going to be a Hitler for Muslims one day.



Think or hope?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2011)

The last part was hilarious "yeah, she didn't mean to hit you, she just wanted to destroy your camera, which is of course not against the law in any way".



ensoriki said:


> Permission should be taken before taking pictures of people.



Why? You're basically saying nobody can take any pictures of any busy city because quite possibly there's always someone in a crowd of passing people who objects to it. That's just stupid.



> I don't care if it's a democracy. Hmph.
> If she was a passerby and he's not trying to take a picture of her, he could've explained that, if she didn't get it afterwards then fine.
> So what if she says it's because shes muslim right or wrong, not everyone likes there picture being taken, period.
> 
> What's supposed to happen, put her in jail over this? Only if we're a bunch of dicks.



False dichotomy bullshit, get your head out of your ass.

Obviously the only punishment for assault can be either jail or letting the criminal get off scot free. Riiiiiiight.


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Aug 5, 2011)

He should publish her photo to piss her off even more.


----------



## Mathias124 (Aug 5, 2011)

the_notorious_Z.?. said:


> He should publish her photo to piss her off even more.



Would be epic


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why? You're basically saying nobody can take any pictures of any busy city because quite possibly there's always someone in a crowd of passing people who objects to it. That's just stupid.


Hardly. It's courteous to ask if you may take a picture of a person, don't tell me you don't understand such a simple concept.



> False dichotomy bullshit, get your head out of your ass.
> 
> Obviously the only punishment for assault can be either jail or letting the criminal get off scot free. Riiiiiiight.


Because I said the only punishment was jail?
Oh wait I didn't.
Get the point, this is hardly significant and barely news worthy.
Just more infliction of bias against a demographic which is clear to see from responses here.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 5, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Sometimes, I can't help but think if there's going to be a Hitler for Muslims one day.



You're basing this on an article from the Toronto Sun tabloid?

Go have a drink.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Hardly. It's courteous to ask if you may take a picture of a person, don't tell me you don't understand such a simple concept.



Except he wasn't taking a picture of a person. The woman just happened to be in the way, and god knows how many other people. Doesn't make sense to ask all of them for consent.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 5, 2011)

Off with her head.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Except he wasn't taking a picture of a person. The woman just happened to be in the way, and god knows how many other people. Doesn't make sense to ask all of them for consent.



You seemed to miss the post that sauf was quoting


> If she was a passerby and he's not trying to take a picture of her, he could've explained that, if she didn't get it afterwards then fine.



But let's act like I didn't say that. 
You should ask people for their permission.
When someone wants a picture of my friends and I we don't object, anyone who object gets out of the picture.
Courtesy seems to of been lost, it's also courtesy not to walk in the middle of someone taking a picture if you can avoid it.


----------



## Dark Kiva (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Except he wasn't taking a picture of a person. The woman just happened to be in the way, and god knows how many other people. Doesn't make sense to ask all of them for consent.



i agree with what you're saying , but people are judging a whole religion because of 1 person


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

Dark Kiva said:


> i agree with what you're saying , but people are judging a whole religion because of 1 person



No, I'm not. Don't make ignorant statements.



> You're basing this on an article from the Toronto Sun tabloid?
> 
> Go have a drink.



No.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Hardly. It's courteous to ask if you may take a picture of a person, don't tell me you don't understand such a simple concept.



So you'd have to ask thousands of people before taking a picture of time square? Keep in mind that these people are moving, hundreds are coming and leaving every minute.



> Because I said the only punishment was jail?
> Oh wait I didn't.
> Get the point, this is hardly significant and barely news worthy.
> Just more infliction of bias against a demographic which is clear to see from responses here.



You strongly implied it. Your question was how she could be punished and then said they shouldn't throw her in jail for it. That's a given, you either feigned ignorance for no reason at all or invoked a false dichotomy in order to make us think the cops acted right when they clearly neglected their duties.

Are you accusing people of bias _against_ muslims in this scenario? You're either completely out of your mind or deliberately dishonest. It's a clear case of muslims getting special treatment. Nobody else would get away with punching someone in the face right on the street before witnesses. Nobody.


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

> Nobody else would get away with punching someone in the face right on the street before witnesses. Nobody.



Because people are rightfully scared of being attacked by Muslim barbarians. If the police treated this woman without bias, Muslims would aggressively suggest that there was bias involved anyway because that's just how they are.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you'd have to ask thousands of people before taking a picture of time square? Keep in mind that these people are moving, hundreds are coming and leaving every minute.


Why don't you read the sentence after the one you were arguing against then get back to me 


> You strongly implied it. Your question was how she could be punished and then said they shouldn't throw her in jail for it. That's a given, you either feigned ignorance for no reason at all or invoked a false dichotomy in order to make us think the cops acted right when they clearly neglected their duties.


It's not a significant crime so outrage is unwarranted. Unless we're a bunch of dicks we're not throwing her in jail for it. The hell are people rolling in disgust for some d level shit.




> Are you accusing people of bias _against_ muslims in this scenario? You're either completely out of your mind or deliberately dishonest. It's a clear case of muslims getting special treatment. Nobody else would get away with punching someone in the face right on the street before witnesses. Nobody.


I damn em, look at the responses.
If you can't see it you sport rose-coloured glasses, and I would like a pair.
If the police favour her, that's not her fault, so again if the issue is her getting off? Dun dun dun dun, get mad at the police, *they* are the enforcers, her job isn't to place charges on herself.

It's a clear case of police deciding what is worth there time and what isn't.
Same shit they did with Rob Ford. They didn't care so they didn't enforce.



Sephiran said:


> Because people are rightfully scared of being attacked by Muslim barbarians. If the police treated this woman without bias, Muslims would aggressively suggest that there was bias involved anyway because that's just how they are.


People get punched in front of witnesses and get off. Let's not be ridiculous. As if the man with a gun has reason to be scared, he just didn't want to pursue it.


----------



## Level7N00b (Aug 5, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Muslim scumbag.



And what do you think should be done about this?


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

Level7N00b said:


> And what do you think should be done about this?



Be treated without bias.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Aug 5, 2011)

Crazy bitches is crazy


----------



## Mathias124 (Aug 5, 2011)

Level7N00b said:


> And what do you think should be done about this?



She should be arrested, just like a christian woman would


----------



## Parallax (Aug 5, 2011)

hahaha this is a great story


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> She should be arrested, just like a christian woman would



Just like any woman would?

People think she got off because she was muslim, is it so far of a stretch considering all the crap we see in the cafe, that she got off because she was a woman? Theres certainly _no_ evidence  of women getting ignored by the legal systems of north america. 
Or maybe the officer just didn't care and rather go eat a donut?
Again this is the same city where police say they are not giving preferential treatment to the mayor for talking on the phone while driving which is not legal, by saying they only pursue these actions when they see them, not when they are told about them.

Same city as the G20 with plenty of police not doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Same city where the police have asked a family member if they are sure they wanted to place charges when someone is a random stranger to them punched them repeatedly. I doubt it was because she was Muslim, highly.


> They probably didn’t want to file a report.


Makes a lot more sense.


----------



## zuul (Aug 5, 2011)

This policeman is such a wuss.

Shame on him.

Another shameful case of sexist double standard. (or maybe religious, or both).

And obligatory : Religious nuts.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Why don't you read the sentence after the one you were arguing against then get back to me





> Permission should be taken before taking pictures of people.



You said this.



> It's not a significant crime so outrage is unwarranted.



It's comparable to stealing someone's wallet.



> Unless we're a bunch of dicks we're not throwing her in jail for it. The hell are people rolling in disgust for some d level shit.



Again with the false dichotomy bullshit. This time I know it's intentional, why the fuck would you bring up jail?



> I damn em, look at the responses.
> If you can't see it you sport rose-coloured glasses, and I would like a pair.
> If the police favour her, that's not her fault, so again if the issue is her getting off? Dun dun dun dun, get mad at the police, *they* are the enforcers, her job isn't to place charges on herself.
> 
> ...



It's a case of police not investigating a crime because they don't want muslims to get upset. If two cops are just walking around, they're most likely patrolling. If they took the time to speak to the woman, then they clearly didn't have anything better to do.

The woman committed a crime and the police signalled her that she did nothing wrong. They're telling everyone in their jurisdiction that you're not free to punch people in the face on the street if they're holding a camera in your general direction.


----------



## butcher50 (Aug 5, 2011)

i don't like muslims............but i will support that woman's actions.

you go GIRL!!!!! punch those annoyingly rude snap-shooters.

anyone snaps a picture of me without permission first, gets a PIZDA in the face.


----------



## Missc (Aug 5, 2011)

butcher50 said:


> i don't like muslims............



Its nice that your honest.


----------



## Mael (Aug 5, 2011)

Learn2assimilate, Muslim woman.

It's still a problem, it seems.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You said this.



lets see


> Permission should be taken before taking pictures of people.
> I don't care if it's a democracy. Hmph.
> *If she was a passerby and he's not trying to take a picture of her, he could've explained that, if she didn't get it afterwards then fine.*





> It's comparable to stealing someone's wallet.


This is not comparable to stealing someone's wallet.


> Again with the false dichotomy bullshit. This time I know it's intentional, why the fuck would you bring up jail?


You miss the point again.
I brought up jail to illustrate that this is not significan't
"We're *not* throwing her in jail for this"
"The hell are people rolling *in disgust for some d level shit.*"
It's a summary offence, and a minor one even within that scope.
Yet "muslim scumbags". 



> It's a case of police not investigating a crime because they don't want muslims to get upset.


Doubt it.
1. He's got a gun
2. Toronto police have asked a family member of mine if he was sure he wanted to press charges after being punched by a person. There were witnesses there too, I was there, the whole family was there, as well as two dudes at the plaza. Unless your going to say in that case they're scared of a hispanic .
3. .
Again police can do whatever
4. Plenty of lazy police
5. not the first time people have gotten off, certainly not the first time women have gotten off.
6. They want to upset the blacks, whites, asians, christians, hindu's, atheist, monkeys,birds that they arrest, but the muslims...no the muslims are the ones they are really worried about upsetting? I find that a stretch.
7. Not every officer holds the same principles, may of sympathised.
8. It's a summary offence, minor assault if anything. Officer may not of thought it was worth his time or the systems time.
9. Officer may just literally believe her and not give enough of a shit to press charges.

Theres enough possibilities that it's not because she was muslim.
Either way when it comes to not charging it's an entirely an issue of the officer.
She didn't want her picture taken, she punched him. Minor assault.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> This is not comparable to stealing someone's wallet.



You're right, it's more like taking the wallet and burning it.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> You're right, it's more like taking the wallet and burning it.



How is a punch that the victim apparently got over comparable to taking someone's wallet, and then burning it.


----------



## Seph (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> How is a punch that the victim apparently got over comparable to taking someone's wallet, and then burning it.



You're right, it's more like taking someone's wallet and taking a shit on it.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

More bullshit comparisons. 
The woman talked some shit so now everyone else has to?


----------



## Zaru (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> How is a punch that the victim apparently got over comparable to taking someone's wallet, and then burning it.



She wanted to knock away his camera. You know what usually happens to cameras when they fall on the ground from that height?


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Did it hit the ground?
Face it, it's shouldn't be compared to stealing a wallet.
It's comparable to...trying to destroy someone's property.
Not stealing it.


Me smashing your ipod on the floor, and me stealing your ipod isn't the same deal. Especially if one of these scenario's doesn't actually succeed.
Attempting and succeeding are two different things and even worse when the attempt and the succession compared are for two different crimes or a crime that is a combination of the two 

Moving forward we can get mad at her for being muslim and shit all we wan't but let's look at it. If none of us can find scripture in her religion that says no camera's, she made it up and is using her religion as an excuse. So it's not a matter of being a muslim, it's a matter of being a bitch and looking for excuses. If she had said "im an atheist you don't take pictures of us" everyone would've called her on her bullshit, but she says she is muslim and the article (or was that Kue?) can't find supports for her claim. She just made up shit and this shouldn't even be considered a representation of muslims in that case, but a woman looking for excuses. Ah but alas I forgot when someone says "I can't cook, im a man" that persons speech should speak on all men


----------



## Kanali (Aug 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Learn2assimilate, Muslim woman.
> 
> It's still a problem, it seems.



What does assimilation have to do with anything, its not like women in Saudi Arabia and Iran go around punching people for taking pictures


----------



## Bluebeard (Aug 5, 2011)

.


----------



## Mael (Aug 5, 2011)

Kanali said:


> What does assimilation have to do with anything, its not like women in Saudi Arabia and Iran go around punching people for taking pictures



It has plenty to do with it.

Being in Canada should tell you that Muslim law doesn't roll here, and that taking pictures (of cars), punching first, and asking questions later SHOULD NOT jive in a place like Toronto or wherever.  This woman overreacted and has to be charged with assault.


----------



## Kanali (Aug 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> It has plenty to do with it.
> 
> Being in Canada should tell you that Muslim law doesn't roll here, and that taking pictures (of cars), punching first, and asking questions later SHOULD NOT jive in a place like Toronto or wherever.  This woman overreacted and has to be charged with assault.



I agree that she should be charged, but I disagree that its a muslim thing. I've seen plenty of atheists and christians freak out when they think someones taking pictures of them, and Im pretty sure that muslim law doesn't allow punching people in the face over pictures, especially when a woman is doing the punching.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> lets see



Read the article, stop looking stupid. He quite clearly explained that he can take pictures of any public place.



> This is not comparable to stealing someone's wallet.



The level of crime is quite similar, but you're right: Assault is always far worse than theft.



> You miss the point again.
> I brought up jail to illustrate that this is not significan't
> "We're *not* throwing her in jail for this"
> "The hell are people rolling *in disgust for some d level shit.*"
> ...



So if we don't throw people in jail for it, it's not a real crime? That's retarded.

We don't throw people in jail for minor drug possession, therefore it's alright for police to disregard someone snorting cocaine in public?



> Doubt it.
> 1. He's got a gun
> 2. Toronto police have asked a family member of mine if he was sure he wanted to press charges after being punched by a person. There were witnesses there too, I was there, the whole family was there, as well as two dudes at the plaza. Unless your going to say in that case they're scared of a hispanic .
> 3. .
> ...



1. Entirely irrelevant to anything I said.
2. Same as above.
3. So muslims get special treatment on the same level as a mayor would? That proves my point.
4. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have asked the woman in the first place.
5. In court maybe, on the street that's something entirely different.
6. If you think that's a stretch, you haven't visited a western country within the last decade. Police, media, polticians, everyone takes measures to avoid offending muslims.
7. A cop who sympathizes with a criminals and lets that affect his work wouldn't remain a cop for long.
8. He thought it worth his time to question the woman. "Not worth his time" implies that he had something specific to do, which wasn't the case. I already refuted that in my last post.
9. Believe her what? That she just wanted to destroy the man's property (probably worth a few hundred bucks) and only accidentally committed assault? That's retarded.

None of that shit makes any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Mael (Aug 5, 2011)

Kanali said:


> I agree that she should be charged, but I disagree that its a muslim thing. I've seen plenty of atheists and christians freak out when they think someones taking pictures of them, and Im pretty sure that muslim law doesn't allow punching people in the face over pictures, especially when a woman is doing the punching.





> Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: *?We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!?* (Odd. I can?t find the ?no photos? rule in the Qur?an.)



She MADE it a Muslim thing.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> It has plenty to do with it.
> 
> Being in Canada should tell you that Muslim law doesn't roll here, and that taking pictures (of cars), punching first, and asking questions later SHOULD NOT jive in a place like Toronto or wherever.  This woman overreacted and has to be charged with assault.



I saw a girl come out of a bar and jump into another woman's car and hit her in the face as she tried to drive away. It seemed dangerous at the time with the girl pulling out into the street while the other girl hanged halfway out the door. The police were called, wrote down some statements, and then drove off without arresting anyone. All they said was that the girls needed to settle down and then warned them that they would be arrested if it ever happened again. 

From what I've seen, police don't take female violence seriously.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 5, 2011)

> The cop walked back to me. No charges would be laid, he said, because he  believed the woman?s story ? namely, she was merely trying to knock the  camera out of my hands.



What the fuck does it matter if she was trying to knock the camera out of his hands?  So I'm free to walk up to whoever I want on the street and smack stuff out of their hands?


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Read the article, stop looking stupid. He quite clearly explained that he can take pictures of any public place.


Did you miss the "THATS FINE" part of the post. 
Or do you like to continually respond to shit, that I've already covered in the context that I did not cover it 



> The level of crime is quite similar, but you're right: Assault is always far worse than theft.


The severity of assault is dependant on the amount of force applied and where it is applied. 
Touching anybody without consent is considered assault. Excuse me while I ponder a pat on the back vs my computer being stolen.




> So if we don't throw people in jail for it, it's not a real crime? That's retarded.


That's not what im saying, strawman.



> We don't throw people in jail for minor drug possession, therefore it's alright for police to disregard someone snorting cocaine in public?


That's there job.
If you haven't gotten by now that I was speaking in reference to posts in this thread you can cease now.


> None of that shit makes any sense whatsoever.





You either don't understand or are purposefully ignoring it.
I'm saying
1. He has no reason to fear them, because he's the one with authority and power
2. I give an actual situation in where police don't think something is worth charging in relation to a hispanic man. As such should make you think "hmm maybe they're just incompetent? It may not be a muslim thing"
3. Should show you that you have plenty of officers that don't care.
4.Your not honestly missing the point this much. He may not care to file the report and place charges . Less you forget placing charges requires a bit of effort on his part. If he doesn't think it's worth it, he probably wouldn't do it. If he doesn't feel obligated to go through legal processes.
5. Um no. You think every police puts charges on everything they're called for?
6. Living in Toronto, again I doubt that was the reason.
7. And? Yes Saulfsodat everyone does their job properly 
8. Don't be silly. He can hear the case, decide whether it's worth his time or not, and not pursue it. 
9. Toronto police are well payed, doesn't mean they're work is always worth it.

It's a shame that people now have to jump to Muslim and forget any other options.
I should've told my bud he should've said he was Muslim and they would've let him off


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 5, 2011)

Given the police themselves seem to be doing this lately I am not suprised.


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 5, 2011)

Stupid fucking woman ! You could have avoided all the "OMG ! MUZLIMZ !! FEAAAAARRRRR !!!!" if you used your right NOT to have a picture taken of you without permission WITHOUT bringing up religion AT ALL !!

Like, you know, SUE FOR PICTURE TAKEN WITHOUT APPROVAL ! It's not that hard ! The moment you raise an objection to your image taken, the person that took a picture has the choice to erase the picture you appear on, or to risk a trial ! (which is still stupid, but it's a privacy right in many countries, even democracies)

Also, violence is stupid. You're not helping, Miss. People will feel comforted in their opinion of "OMG ! MUZLIMZ WANNA RUL UZZZZZ !!!


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2011)

i was hopping for an awesome story but am dissapoint


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 5, 2011)

Nihonjin said:


> God I hate religion..



I hate reporters worse. I wouldn't have stopped with a simple punch. I'd have beaten him into a quivering pulp with my crowbar and shit on his camera.


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 5, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> I hate reporters worse. I wouldn't have stopped with a simple punch. I'd have beaten him into a quivering pulp with my crowbar and shit on his camera.



....

I thought the absence of red meat reduced aggressivity...


----------



## Bluebeard (Aug 5, 2011)

He wasn't even a reporter.


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 5, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> ....
> 
> I thought the absence of red meat reduced aggressivity...



It does. I'm only about 25% as aggressive and mean as I was as an omnivore back in the day. I used to get expelled for stabbing people and shit.


----------



## MILK COW (Aug 5, 2011)

Kanali said:


> I agree that she should be charged, but I disagree that its a muslim thing. I've seen plenty of atheists and christians freak out when they think someones taking pictures of them



lol what a lie... as if atheism or christianity has anything against taking pictures. 

if a person who happened to be an atheist or christian flipped out because someone took their picture, it would be from a motive not fueled by their religious beliefs 

you're reasoning is weak


----------



## Psych (Aug 5, 2011)

I can understand her not wanting the photo to be taken and even demanding said photo to be deleted.

But punching him in the face and nothing being done about assault. That is disgusting.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 5, 2011)

Gecka said:


> God says fuck you



If God existed, I'm sure he'd hate religion too..


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Aug 5, 2011)

Well the police inaction is the problem here and I hope it was a singular event and not a nationwide reaction, to overreactions over fictional religious rights, that is used as an excuse of some people who violate others freedom and commit crimes. Or have a false understanding of the kind of society that a free society is supposed to be.

It might also be a singular event of police incompetency that is unrelated to the police caring about not pursuing people who mention religious rights. Either way they shouldn't have left this go nor should they have said that they bought the story that she was trying to knock the camera off his hands, I don't think that, that was legal either.


----------



## Enigma (Aug 5, 2011)

What bullshit. She should be charged with assault and battery. 



> The cop walked back to me. No charges would be laid, he said, because he believed the woman’s story — namely, she was merely trying to knock the camera out of my hands.



HAHAHAHA. That's still a crime.

I don't see how stupid these people can get seeing that there are no mention of having pictures taken is against the religion.

Haven't there been a bunch of Muslims with their pictures taken, even in the Middle East?


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 5, 2011)

MILK COW said:


> lol what a lie... as if atheism or christianity has anything against taking pictures.


I believe what he is trying to say is that there are people atheist or christian that do not want their pictures taken so it's not a matter of religious belief, but that she didn't want her picture taken



> if a person who happened to be an atheist or christian flipped out because someone took their picture, it would be from a motive not fueled by their religious beliefs
> 
> you're reasoning is weak


Isn't that the same thing.
Can someone figure out where it says muslims cannot take pictures? Considering all the muslims I've gone to school with got their school photo's I'm almost positive this woman made shit up.

She didn't want her picture taken and it's for some other reason but she A) said it was because of religion when it isn't B) doesn't know her religion and speaks out of her ignorance to her own religion.

Edit: Fuck it im 100% positive this woman was talking shit because if that was true she couldn't get a passport, license, etc, because that would require her picture.

She didn't want her picture taken and blamed religion. Don't pay her religion any mind, shes A) an idiot B) a set-up.


----------



## iasonaaas (Aug 5, 2011)

WTF... I thought that Muslim women have no rights and are treated as inferior beings by men


----------



## Xion (Aug 5, 2011)

I say we treat her like she had done that in a Muslim nation.

Cut off her hands then stone her.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 5, 2011)

Any other person would be charged with assault. This is retarded.


----------



## g_core18 (Aug 5, 2011)

He should have punched that cunt back.


----------



## Talon. (Aug 5, 2011)

I saw this on TheAmazingAtheist the other day.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAl8t9tL9dE&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 5, 2011)

Talon. said:


> I saw this on TheAmazingAtheist the other day.
> 
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAl8t9tL9dE&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]



"No! Arrest that fucking bitch!" 
This guy is amazing. 

**


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Aug 5, 2011)

it was more of a fight, they should both be charged. The guy provoked her with his dickish response and almost got his ass beat by a mob.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 5, 2011)

He deserved to get punched in the face. If a stranger gets offended over you taking a photo of them the polite thing to do is apologies irregardless of their reasoning.
_____
That aside it is unusual for people to get charged over such trivial shit. Informal cautions are usually handed out.


----------



## Kue (Aug 5, 2011)

Gunners said:


> He deserved to get punched in the face. If a stranger gets offended over you taking a photo of them the polite thing to do is apologies irregardless of their reasoning.
> _____
> That aside it is unusual for people to get charged over such trivial shit. Informal cautions are usually handed out.



Dude, him and his son were taking pictures of the Yonge-Dundas Square.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 5, 2011)

Gunners said:


> He deserved to get punched in the face. If a stranger gets offended over you taking a photo of them the polite thing to do is apologies irregardless of their reasoning.
> _____
> That aside it is unusual for people to get charged over such trivial shit. Informal cautions are usually handed out.



He wasn't taking pictures of her and no, he didn't deserve to get punched in the face for it. :/


----------



## spaZ (Aug 5, 2011)

Thats bullshit fucking pussy cops scared of starting a riot. Like who cares if one broke out it would be an awesome excuse to shoot down them muslims.


----------



## Grep (Aug 6, 2011)

This is stupid. That sort of shit happens all over the place. Has nothing to do with religion. 

I know a guy who got robbed and the police didn't give a darn or do anything and we even knew the person who did it. Tons of evidence and shit. It wasn't for a huge amount so nobody cared.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 6, 2011)

BGtymin said:


> This is stupid. That sort of shit happens all over the place. Has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> I know a guy who got robbed and the police didn't give a darn or do anything and we even knew the person who did it. Tons of evidence and shit. It wasn't for a huge amount so nobody cared.



It did have to do with religion though. She got away with it for two reasons: 1) she claimed she was aiming for the camera which somehow means what she did was okay or not bad and 2) her religion acting as reason behind her actions. So she was let off on those two reasons. :/



> Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: “We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!” *(Odd. I can’t find the “no photos” rule in the Qur’an.)*
> 
> I informed the lady I was in a public square in a democracy. I can actually take pictures of whomever I please.
> 
> ...



Reading this part again makes me lol because of the camera bit and then  because they surrounded a child like sharks.


----------



## Grep (Aug 6, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> It did have to do with religion though. She got away with it for two reasons: 1) she claimed she was aiming for the camera which somehow means what she did was okay or not bad and 2) her religion acting as reason behind her actions. So she was let off on those two reasons. :/
> 
> 
> 
> Reading this part again makes me lol because of the camera bit and then  because they surrounded a child like sharks.



Except that blurb says nothing of the sort. 

It says the cop just believed her side of the story.

Cops don't always care or believe you.

Not every little dispute needs to be settled with people getting arrested. If cops arrested every single argument and scuffle it would get out of hand. 

Tough break for the guy but he needs to man up and deal with it.

The lady was in the wrong though. But people blow this type of thing out of proportion.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 6, 2011)

BGtymin said:


> Except that blurb says nothing of the sort.
> 
> It says the cop just believed her side of the story.
> 
> ...



I suppose there is no evidence to prove why they let it go, so I'll just drop it here xD


----------



## Grep (Aug 6, 2011)

I also want to point out that this is entirely he said she said. 

Though it is interesting that this dudes account is taken as fact.

We can't really know if she did hit him or what she actually said. Or even what he said and did for that matter.

People buy into these types of stories way too easily.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 6, 2011)

Given what the article said (there was a "mob" of people, estimated to be around 20, many of which were apparently speaking arabic) the officer prob. didnt want to risk enciting yet another islamatard riot by arresting her or taking her into custody for questioning.

Which dosnt help the general muslim population's cause of "most of us arnt uber-sensitive, trigger happy, assimilation-resistant religious zealots". I agree that this idiot should have been arrested, or at least taken to the nearest PD for questioning regarding the incident, instead of being let off the hook due to fear of what i mentioned above.

But since the article seems to be from a tabloid, automaticly puts the whole thing in a fishy light


----------



## butcher50 (Aug 6, 2011)

Deputy Myself said:


> grow the fuck up



Rott sovoy zakril pidar gnoynei, ato priedo i iznasilvayou tvayou Pizzdulinu.

Hoy sus paganey.

Rila paganaya Razpizdashu


----------



## Kue (Aug 6, 2011)

spaZ said:


> Thats bullshit fucking pussy cops scared of starting a riot. Like who cares if one broke out it would be an awesome excuse to shoot down them muslims.



I don't think this would solve anything either...


----------



## fantzipants (Aug 6, 2011)

Nihonjin said:


> I hate religion..



I hate when people maliciously try to be a jackass and fuck with people because they dont follow anothers beliefs and claim fowl for getting their butt handed to them. Although in this case it was extreme.she isnt living in the middle east and needs to accept that people dont think like her.she should apologize.


----------



## God (Aug 6, 2011)

Nihonjin is a baiting ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), fuck him.

I have to say though, if I was minding my own business and some guy just took a picture of me, I'd have to do something about it as well. Not because he "can't take pictures of Muslims" but because it's a violation of my privacy.

Wouldn't punch him in front of his kid or anything, but still.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 6, 2011)

Since people seem to be bringing race and integration and culture into it:


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 6, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Since people seem to be bringing race and integration and culture into it:



That's all in the US, we're talking about Canada. I do believe Canadian cops aren't quite as thuggish as their US counterparts.


----------



## Dionysus (Aug 6, 2011)

No, they're quite thuggish. They are also known to infiltrate protesting groups to try to incite violence, then arrest people. (Well, known for two large events.) They also love tasing people to death.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> That's all in the US, we're talking about Canada. I do believe Canadian cops aren't quite as thuggish as their US counterparts.



So all Muslims are the same but there's a vast difference between the USA and its hat?

Barring in mind in the drug thread someone basically said the USA dictated Canadian drug policy.



Dionysus said:


> No, they're quite thuggish. They are also known to infiltrate protesting groups to try to incite violence, then arrest people. (Well, known for two large events.) They also love tasing people to death.



See? Listen to him


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 6, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> No, they're quite thuggish. They are also known to infiltrate protesting groups to try to incite violence, then arrest people. (Well, known for two large events.) They also love tasing people to death.



In that case I retract my former statement, looks like the police in all of North America sucks big, hairy donkey balls.


----------



## kazuri (Aug 6, 2011)

Ahh yes, 'done nothing wrong? Got nothing to hide. PUT DOWN THE CAMERA'

Makes perfect sense.

So I expect any store/building that has security cameras has to take them down when cops come into them, right? Because there is no difference.


----------



## Vynjira (Aug 6, 2011)

Whether or not a Photographer has the right to take people's pictures, doesn't give you the right to hit that person.

Take em to court and let the court award you tons of money.


----------



## Kue (Aug 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> I hate when people maliciously try to be a jackass and fuck with people because they dont follow anothers beliefs and claim fowl for getting their butt handed to them. Although in this case it was extreme.she isnt living in the middle east and needs to accept that people dont think like her.she should apologize.





Cubey said:


> Nihonjin is a baiting ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), fuck him.
> 
> I have to say though, if I was minding my own business and some guy just took a picture of me, I'd have to do something about it as well. Not because he "can't take pictures of Muslims" but because it's a violation of my privacy.
> 
> Wouldn't punch him in front of his kid or anything, but still.



I highly doubt it would have been okay for her to do that in the middle east as well.  As for Nihonjin, he has freedom as speech as much as you two do.  And if you read the article, he wasn't taking pictures of the people, he was taking pictures of the Yonge-Dundas Square.



Dionysus said:


> No, they're quite thuggish. They are also known to infiltrate protesting groups to try to incite violence, then arrest people. (Well, known for two large events.) They also love tasing people to death.



As for the G20s, it is not the fault of the police officers themselves, but it was the fault of the person in charge of the riots that kept giving ridiculous orders (I was a security guard at the G20 areas).  I still found it ridiculous how much money they spent on this though.  Tasing people to death doesn't happen much in Canada either compared to other countries, and after they were happening, they have had stricter guidelines and you don't hear about people being tased to death anymore.

From personal experience, it seems that Toronto police specifically are too scared to do shit these days, and to call them thuggish would be too much of a compliment.



The Pink Ninja said:


> Barring in mind in the drug thread someone basically said the USA dictated Canadian drug policy.



I haven't seen any proof of this.


----------



## Dionysus (Aug 6, 2011)

Kue said:


> As for the G20s, it is not the fault of the police officers themselves, but it was the fault of the person in charge of the riots that kept giving ridiculous orders (I was a security guard at the G20 areas).  I still found it ridiculous how much money they spent on this though.  Tasing people to death doesn't happen much in Canada either compared to other countries, and after they were happening, they have had stricter guidelines and you don't hear about people being tased to death anymore.
> 
> From personal experience, it seems that Toronto police specifically are too scared to do shit these days, and to call them thuggish would be too much of a compliment.


I believe there was a another taser death a month or two ago, out west somewhere.

Quebec police, the RCMP and a few other forces are the major thug forces. Though, this is relative to the US. I just wanted to point out that the perception of the upstanding Mountie is laughable today. There is thuggery and use of insidious tactics in the Canadian police, just as there is in the US.

Toronto police love standing around and making money watching over construction. That's their favoured pastime these days.



Kue said:


> I haven't seen any proof of this.


I'm not sure what he's referring to specifically, but the approach that was being taken by the Chretien/Martin Liberals--namely the decriminalization of pot for personal use, in small quantities--was under intense lobbying pressure by the US to change. I believe there were even threats from various US politicians that it would impact trade and such.

The US did the same with Mexico, but Mexico went through with some liberalizations. (I think.)

If it's about Harper, it's a bit different. There is no proof the Con government's policies are dictated from Washington, that I've seen. But a lot of their "Law & Order" ideas are lifted from the US, even when there is ample evidence they do nothing but increase the prison population. This includes mandatory minimum sentencing for pot possession.


----------



## abcd (Aug 6, 2011)

Seriously ? .. This is news?..

Some woman did some stupid shit , the guy was not affected at all and the police guy was a lazy asshole......

I am not sure why this has reached 6 pages


----------



## Seph (Aug 6, 2011)

abcd said:


> Seriously ? .. This is news?..
> 
> Some woman did some stupid shit , the guy was not affected at all and the police guy was a lazy asshole......
> 
> I am not sure why this has reached 6 pages



One world: Islam.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 6, 2011)

abcd said:


> Seriously ? .. This is news?..
> 
> Some woman did some stupid shit , the guy was not affected at all and the police guy was a lazy asshole......
> 
> I am not sure why this has reached 6 pages



Because of the implications. People don't like when muslims get away with bullshit. 

Watch how muslims will start slapping people's belongings out of their hands all over toronto


----------



## Kue (Aug 6, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> I believe there was a another taser death a month or two ago, out west somewhere.
> 
> Quebec police, the RCMP and a few other forces are the major thug forces. Though, this is relative to the US. I just wanted to point out that the perception of the upstanding Mountie is laughable today. There is thuggery and use of insidious tactics in the Canadian police, just as there is in the US.
> 
> ...



Good point.


----------



## Nihonjin (Aug 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> I hate when people maliciously try to be a jackass and fuck with people because they dont follow anothers beliefs and claim fowl for getting their butt handed to them.



This is what religious people do all the fucking time.



Cubey said:


> Nihonjin is a baiting *^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)*, fuck him.



Baiting? I would never. ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)? I don't really like that term, better to use "Gay". And no, I'm straight, sorry. So no fucking please, unless you're secretly my girlfriend.



> I have to say though, if I was minding my own business and some guy just took a picture of me, I'd have to do something about it as well. Not because he "can't take pictures of Muslims" *but because it's a violation of my privacy.*



Not if you're in a public place.


----------



## Berserk (Aug 6, 2011)

Yeah, I'm sure his intentions was to take pictures of a broad covered head to toe.  I'm more irritated by the fact that she thinks she's important enough to be photographed.  Dumb broad.


----------



## Jessica (Aug 6, 2011)

How is this news? Photographers are abused all the time, especially the paparazzi!


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 6, 2011)

Cubey said:


> I have to say though, if I was minding my own business and some guy just took a picture of me, I'd have to do something about it as well. Not because he "can't take pictures of Muslims" but because it's a violation of my privacy.



If you're standing in a public place like this woman was then how exactly is your privacy being violated?


----------



## kazuri (Aug 6, 2011)

> but because it's a violation of my privacy.



Do you really think no one should be allowed to look at you while youre in public? Looking at you is no less an invasion of privacy than looking at a picture of you.


----------



## Berserk (Aug 6, 2011)

Expecting privacy in public places.  Laws say other wise.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 7, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Do you really think no one should be allowed to look at you while youre in public? Looking at you is no less an invasion of privacy than looking at a picture of you.



Have to interject and say that it is less of an invasion of privacy.
After you look at someone all you have left of that is a memory, not particularly easy to distribute and in addition memory usually wanes.
Taking a picture leaves you with something tangible of that moment, is that not why we take them, so we have something more than memory?


----------



## Oturan (Aug 7, 2011)

did he died?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 7, 2011)

He's just mad he got beat up by a girl in front of his son.


----------



## kazuri (Aug 7, 2011)

> Have to interject and say that it is less of an invasion of privacy.
> After you look at someone all you have left of that is a memory, not particularly easy to distribute and in addition memory usually wanes.
> Taking a picture leaves you with something tangible of that moment, is that not why we take them, so we have something more than memory?



What you're describing has nothing to do with invasion of privacy, it has to do with remembering things you saw.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 7, 2011)

Seeing something and recording it aren't the same at least not by a fair amount of people.
Seeing you do some stupid shit at a party, and taking a video of you doing some stupid shit at a party causes a different thought process 'what are you going to do with that video'.


----------



## Kahvehane (Aug 7, 2011)

As a photographer I will say this: yes, we have a somewhat ethical imperative to ask permission before taking a shot that includes another person, but on the flip side, most people shy away from a camera lens when asked, thus making our jobs substantially more difficult. I've been denied some _excellent_ compositions all because of someone's baseless camera stage-fright. I've also take some shots and then been politely asked by someone who was included in the shot to not use that picture, which I found reasonable, albeit slightly frustrating. What this woman did was completely unwarranted and utterly despicable. I don't know what the laws pertaining to assault are in Canada, but this would be a good time to exercise them.


----------



## kazuri (Aug 7, 2011)

> Seeing something and recording it aren't the same at least not by a fair amount of people.



OF course they are different. That however does not have anything to do with making it more invasive. Knowing about the private topics is what invasion of privacy is. Remembering those topics have nothing to do with it.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 7, 2011)

The point being that taking a picture creates an easily shareable physical piece, where as looking at someone does not.
In turn as a result of being more easily shareable it is easier for people you do not want to have/see that piece to do so.


----------



## kazuri (Aug 7, 2011)

It is not more easily shareable, it is only more easily remember-able later after youve shared it. It is equally easy to share with words.

That fact that its physical proof of what you invaded does not make it anymore invasive, you are thinking of some other term, but its not invasiveness.


----------



## Mizura (Aug 7, 2011)

What I think:
1. If you're specifically taking a picture of someone, then it'd be the polite thing to ask first.

2. If you're taking a photo of a general area though, you don't owe anyone shit. I live in China. Tourist areas are Full of people, or as the expression goes, "People mountain people sea." It's nearly impossible to take a photo of a landmark (unless it's the roof) without including a dozen people inside. If you expect them to all go out of the way just so you can leisurely take photos though, they'll give you the finger (because it's crowded enough without them making way for photographers, besides everyone else is taking photos too, it's impossible to expect everyone to wait in turn).

I mean, .

If someone complains to me after I've taken a photo with that many people inside, I'd consider him a total loon.

3. I've been to the Middle-East once, and women there actually do resent being photographed. But it has Nothing to do with religion. Rather, they think it's rather rude of foreigners to treat them as curiosity pieces.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Aug 7, 2011)

If the officer on duty attempted to arrest these women by himself in the face of a mob, there might have been a rather serious escalation of events that ultimately lead many being put at unnecessary risk.  Don’t get me wrong, it's nice to enforce the law, but it's also nice for police to exercise a degree of "selective restraint" in some situation. Oh, and please don’t be under the disillusion selective enforcement of the law occurs. Being a blue still means you’re an individual! In fact, I will give an example. A cop friend of mine who works up north has to deal with aboriginal youth everyday. One day he noticed some youth maybe 14-16 had some beer bottles and were hanging around in the parking lot. He told me he talked to them a bit, and it was indeed their car. Sounds alright so far...but at some point he noticed their vehicle had a steady stockpile of weapons. There were at least maybe 8-10 youth and he was by himself. Obviously he didn't do jack shit, and can you blame him? 

I'm not saying you gotta excuse the crime, or even that this story's cops reasoning wasn’t slanted and terrible, but it ain't like the damn movies. Brother gotta do what he gotta do .

Ps: The story sounds like a lot of talk without any certainty about what exactly happened. Seriously, one person's recount does not the truth necessarily make. 

Pss: “insult generic damn Muslim insult here” that I hope sounds coy in a way that makes me come off as disliking “that whole religion and or extending to cultural in general”, but still doesn’t make me sound too prejudice. I mean, prejudice ain’t prejidue when you got some truth in it? Or is it? :amazed

….
…….
………..


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 7, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> The point being that taking a picture creates an easily shareable physical piece, where as looking at someone does not.
> In turn as a result of being more easily shareable it is easier for people you do not want to have/see that piece to do so.



What point exactly do you think you're making?  

People shouldn't be able to take pictures of you in public places because they could share that you were out in public?


----------



## Miss Fortune (Aug 7, 2011)

You see, that sort of thing is a stretch. I mean yes it's a democracy you can do stuff, but you can't take all the pics you want of people, that's stretching it.

I mean, you can't take pictures of naked men or women without their consent. That's illegal.

Of course she was obviously fully clothed so woman be bitchy...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 7, 2011)

Miss Fortune said:


> You see, that sort of thing is a stretch. I mean yes it's a democracy you can do stuff, but you can't take all the pics you want of people, that's stretching it.
> 
> I mean, you can't take pictures of naked men or women without their consent. That's illegal.
> 
> Of course she was obviously fully clothed so woman be bitchy...



She was standing in a public place.  You can take a picture of ANYTHING you can see from public land.  If you can see it from public land then its not exactly private is it?

If someone is walking down the street naked or washing their car naked and you can see them from a public area then you can take a picture of them, thats not illegal.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 7, 2011)

Even if he 'purposely' took a picture of her, she had no right to punch him in the face. If I was him, I would know two wrongs don't make a right, but the left they make is just as sweet. 

I would take another picture and say. "_now_ I have a picture of a Muslim"


----------



## Assimilate (Aug 8, 2011)

Miss Fortune said:


> You see, that sort of thing is a stretch. I mean yes it's a democracy you can do stuff, but you can't take all the pics you want of people, that's stretching it.
> 
> I mean, you can't take pictures of naked men or women without their consent. That's illegal.
> 
> Of course she was obviously fully clothed so woman be bitchy...



Maybe she shouldn't be out in public places where pictures are taken, then.

Do you flip out when people take pictures at monuments that might accidentally include you?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 8, 2011)

Please, Allah. Let there be video.


----------



## spaZ (Aug 8, 2011)

Kue said:


> I don't think this would solve anything either...



Yeah I know violence never really did solve anything. 

But still cops shouldn't of been scared to do something about that woman.


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

I took a picture of a woman wearing a black burqa in London. 

At least I was smart enough to do it without being noticed.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 8, 2011)

I don't see why she was so upset about it all. Back in Iran the women didn't mind at all when I took pictures.


----------



## abcd (Aug 8, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I took a picture of a woman wearing a black burqa in London.
> 
> At least I was smart enough to do it without being noticed.



but whats the point


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

Show other people.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 8, 2011)

abcd said:


> but whats the point



Oh shit, look at the hands of the one in the middle. That's so fucking sexy


----------



## zuul (Aug 8, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh shit, look at the hands of the one in the middle. That's so fucking sexy



What a whorish woman. She should be ashamed. Showing her hand in such a careless way.

She'd better not whine if she were to be raped.

Would be a fitting punishment for such a slutty attitude.


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

Imagine a woman in a burqa getting a pat down.


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I don't see why she was so upset about it all. Back in Iran the women didn't mind at all when I took pictures.



Clear example that something like this depends on person to person and is not religion based. 

Personally, even I hate my photo being taken.


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I took a picture of a woman wearing a black burqa in London.
> 
> At least I was smart enough to do it without being noticed.



Oh and didz it make you feel superiorz to dem scummy Mozlemzs?


----------



## StaleMate (Aug 8, 2011)

if he's that much of a wuss that he got his ass handed to him by a women, then he desrved that ass beating ROFLMAO


----------



## impersonal (Aug 8, 2011)

kazuri said:


> What you're describing has nothing to do with invasion of privacy, it has to do with remembering things you saw.


Taking a picture of someone in the street without his consent is a violation of basic respect for other people (at least if it's a portrait-type picture). It may not be illegal, but I can perfectly understand that it led to a confrontation.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 8, 2011)

This nine year old will never forget the day his dad looked like a little bitch.


----------



## GreenSage (Aug 8, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This nine year old will never forget the day his dad looked like a little bitch.



I feel like thats not the moral of the story!


----------



## T.D.A (Aug 8, 2011)

so when I punch a guy in the face due to a fight I'm suppose to get charged? LOL

you guys


----------



## hustler's ambition (Aug 8, 2011)

Good for her!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 8, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> so when I punch a guy in the face due to a fight I'm suppose to get charged? LOL
> 
> you guys



Obviously or do you want to get punched in the face by random people when you walk down the street?


----------



## Mael (Aug 8, 2011)

Nesha said:


> Good for her!



Typical Nesha response.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 8, 2011)

It's the Burqa effect. The cops in Canada don't know how to deal with this. But if the police don't deal with such event, them people would be forced to make justice by themselves.


----------



## Hi Im God (Aug 8, 2011)

Oh please white conservative victims....

I'm sure the future Anders Breiviks of the world will be galvanized by such obvious infringements on white rights.

Yes, I bet he wasn't trying to instigate anything and was simply taking photgraphs of the scenery. Scenery like this photo:



not to mention  <-- is Canada's News of the World.

From the comments (majority will tell you what kind of paper this is)
a known hater of multiculturalism, known to have anti-Muslim
views is telling us that he just happened to be next to a group of burka
wearing Muslims, when he just happened to snap a photo of the some
statue conveniently next to them, and this article is published on all
anti-Muslim/anti-Islam blogs that the Norway killer frequented (like
Robert Spencer's blog)? Fishy.... well done Sun!


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 8, 2011)

Hi Im God said:


> Oh please white conservative victims....
> 
> I'm sure the future Anders Breiviks of the world will be galvanized by such obvious infringements on white rights.
> 
> ...


Is that the photo if such then the guy is utterly stupid also a pussy for getting his ass whopped infront of his 9 year old.


----------



## The Awesome Geert Wilders (Aug 8, 2011)

Muslims can do whatever the fuck they want. It's their country now after all...


----------



## Santeira (Aug 8, 2011)

Hi Im God said:


> Oh please white conservative victims....
> 
> I'm sure the future Anders Breiviks of the world will be galvanized by such obvious infringements on white rights.
> 
> ...



 I'd punch him in the face too. Jerk deserves it.


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 8, 2011)

s'all good, everyone hates paparazzi.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 8, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Taking a picture of someone in the street without his consent is a violation of basic respect for other people (at least if it's a portrait-type picture). It may not be illegal, but I can perfectly understand that it led to a confrontation.



I see so whenever you want to take a picture of a public place you should run around and ask every person present if they don't mind having you take their picture?  And if they say no are you supposed to wait until they leave and then ask the new batch of people?

They should be suing any news agency that happens to have people walking in the background as they cover events.

If you don't want your picture taken then don't go to places where people take pictures.  Its pretty basic logic.  I wouldn't go to a baseball game then if I was put up on the jumbotron, run into the control booth and threaten the guy running it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 8, 2011)

I don't get how you can assault someone for a photograph...is this more of the Muslim rule where they can do it and we can't.


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't get how you can assault someone for a photograph...is this more of the Muslim rule where they can do it and we can't.



I've been slappedassaulted by many non Muslim girls at college (and School). Its unfortunate that they were never charged. Law sucks doesn't it. 

On a more serious note, all this whining over a petty incident is quite amusing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> I've been slappedassaulted by many non Muslim girls at college (and School). Its unfortunate that they were never charged. Law sucks doesn't it.
> 
> On a more serious note, all this whining over a petty incident is quite amusing.



He should have whipped it out and pissed on her.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 8, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't get how you can assault someone for a photograph...is this more of the Muslim rule where they can do it and we can't.


No she just made the shit up. 



Missc said:


> I've been slappedassaulted by many non Muslim girls at college (and School).


Scientifically speaking has not hitting the bitch achieved the desired results?


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He should have whipped it out and pissed on her.



And then prepare himself for the repercussions !!!


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> And then prepare himself for the repercussions !!!


His son could've just pissed on her. You can't be charged if your under 12.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> And then prepare himself for the repercussions !!!



Piss in her eyes...that's how you make sure she can't identify you.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Aug 8, 2011)

I went with some friends to Canada's side of Niagra Falls once. One of my friends wanted to take pics of the hotel we stayed in, including the indoor pool area which was pretty big. There happened to be a family in the pool when he took a pic of it, and dad raced after him to get in his face and force him to delete it. Maybe it's just Canada... or maybe...

So this victimized photographer Menzies has clear photos with the Muslim woman holding up her hand telling him to stop (as in she is the clear subject of the photo)? This is way too fishy... more like possible instigation. 

And if some creeper was taking pics of me and my family in _that_ fashion (as the clear subjects without permission), I'd punch him too.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 8, 2011)

I remember when "News" was important shit, not just "incidental gossip horseshit that provides anecdotal evidence with which to rant against the state of society."


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> I've been slappedassaulted by many non Muslim girls at college (and School). Its unfortunate that they were never charged. Law sucks doesn't it.
> 
> On a more serious note, all this whining over a petty incident is quite amusing.



Listen up, Muslims don't have any special rights. Don't suggest that they do by calling this a petty incident. This Muslim barbarian got away with doing what she did simply for being a Muslim - i.e. she had special rights because Islam is a religion of fighting and war.

This is why this is such a big deal.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 8, 2011)

Was the entire Muslim population behind her agging her on? If not, this is just the reaction of one Muslim and extrapolating the state of the entire religion from it is ridiculous.

Nevermind that there's a difference between incidentally taking a picture of people in a public place and framing her in the middle of the fucking shot.


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

Adonis said:


> Was the entire Muslim population behind her agging her on? If not, this is just the reaction of one Muslim and extrapolating the state of the entire religion from it is ridiculous.



So what? It still shows that Muslims have special rights because they're terrorists and use violence. It's very important.


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Listen up, Muslims don't have any special rights.



I agree, they shouldn't. 



> Don't suggest that they do by calling this a petty incident. This Muslim barbarian got away with doing what she did simply for being a Muslim - i.e. she had special rights because Islam is a religion of fighting and war.
> 
> This is why this is such a big deal.



Calling her a Muslim barbarian, isn't that a little extreme?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> Calling her a Muslim barbarian, isn't that a little extreme?


You're new here I presume.


----------



## Missc (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> Calling her a Muslim barbarian, isn't that a little extreme?



On a second thought, why do I even bother,

1) You believe all Muslims are terrorists and use violence.
2) You compare Muslims to cancer.
3) You have implied that you hope for a "Muslim Hitler"

(All in one thread).


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

1) I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists.
2) Yes, Muslims are not a good force for this planet and it's the fastest growing religion.
3) It was a joke.

I believe that Muslims are little better than barbarians, if at all.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 8, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> 1) I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists.
> 2) Yes, Muslims are not a good force for this planet and it's the fastest growing religion.
> 3) It was a joke.
> 
> *I believe that Muslims are little better than barbarians**, if at all.*


 ...


----------



## Seph (Aug 8, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> ...



What? They have incredibly backward beliefs.


----------



## impersonal (Aug 8, 2011)

Adonis said:


> Was the entire Muslim population behind her agging her on? If not, this is just the reaction of one Muslim and extrapolating the state of the entire religion from it is ridiculous.
> 
> Nevermind that there's a difference between incidentally taking a picture of people in a public place and framing her in the middle of the fucking shot.



Exactly. 

Besides, what we have is the story of the reporter. He's the one who got punched. His story is going to be biased.

For all we know, it's very possible that the cop just thought _"man, that guy's a douche. I'm not gonna charge her, he had it coming."_ The whole thing reminds me of photographer JM Banier, who charged a homeless man with attacking him... Banier sat just in front of him and took tons of pictures of the man without once asking him for permission. If this photographer is anything like that, it's got little to do with these women being Muslim.

Another possibility is that the women thought that pictures of them were going to be used to display how "Islam is invading us", and objected to that. Hence the whole altercation...

And finally, it's possible that the whole crowd was another case of an immigrant community taking care of one of theirs, and a cop not willing to deal with a possibly difficult situation... That's not what I'd call a great thing, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.

I'm of course just speculating. What I'm saying is that there's little we know about what happened. Let's not rush to conclusions.


----------



## Hi Im God (Aug 8, 2011)

Hi Im God said:


> Oh please white conservative victims....
> 
> I'm sure the future Anders Breiviks of the world will be galvanized by such obvious infringements on white rights.
> 
> ...



I hate it when I post and it's the last one on a page lol.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 8, 2011)

Missc said:


> Clear example that something like this depends on person to person and is not religion based.
> 
> Personally, even I hate my photo being taken.


Of course its not religion base. The Qur'an or Ahadith never said "thy shall never be present before cameras". 

Clear example this woman got away with it because she's a Muslim. She didn't have the right to punch him. :/

@Hi Im God:
How do you know it wasn't taken afterward?


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 9, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Of course its not religion base. The Qur'an or Ahadith never said "thy shall never be present before cameras".
> 
> Clear example this woman got away with it because she's a Muslim. She didn't have the right to punch him. :/
> 
> ...



Only you would bieleve such a trashy paper. There's difference of opinion on taking picture's some say only for necessity [passprts and licences] others find them okay but in terms of modesty women wouldn't want men looking at them covered or not, which is what I beileve this boils down to. 

She didn't have a right to punch him, but he should have stopped when taking the pictures; as she was walking up to them apologised and deleted them.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 9, 2011)

Outlandish said:


> Only you would bieleve such a trashy paper. There's difference of opinion on taking picture's some say only for necessity [passprts and licences] others find them okay but in terms of modesty women wouldn't want men looking at them covered or not, which is what I beileve this boils down to.
> 
> She didn't have a right to punch him, but he should have stopped when taking the pictures; as she was walking up to them apologised and deleted them.


What would _I only_ believe?  The article where a Muslim woman punches a man for taking a picture of her because she thinks its against her religion and gets away with it because she was only trying to destroy his property? Is that the trashy paper you are talking about...? 

So a woman who takes pictures isn't modest...?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 9, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> @Hi Im God:
> How do you know it wasn't taken afterward?


Because a police officer was in the vicinity and no one would be stupid enough to take a photo then.


----------



## Mizura (Aug 9, 2011)

T.D.A said:


> so when I punch a guy in the face due to a fight I'm suppose to get charged? LOL
> 
> you guys


Actually, once I thought about it a bit, yeah, it's not surprising the cop did nothing, Burka or no Burka. He said that her fist collided with his face. Did she really give him a professional punch? Did he bleed after that? Did she break his nose?

It's quite possible that she really Wasn't looking to punch his nose. He was probably holding his camera up high, and she was flailing around trying to get rid of the camera (since she wanted to get rid of the photo). Since she's no professional fighter, she ended hitting his nose instead.

Skirmishes happen from time to time. This wasn't a real fight, there isn't theft involved, and both parties aren't out to really beat each other up. If she broke his camera, he could have demanded compensation.

But, do people really get sent to jail for one brief confrontation on the street (one that doesn't really qualify as a fight)? Imagine if a woman slaps her boyfriend on the streets. Jail-time?

The cop probably dismissed it as "lol, over-sensitive people. Go home and have a good night's rest."



> For all we know, it's very possible that the cop just thought "man, that guy's a douche. I'm not gonna charge her, he had it coming."


Yeah, that too.


----------



## butcher50 (Aug 9, 2011)

Outlandish said:


> s'all good, everyone hates paparazzi.



it unites us.


----------



## Amatérasu’s Son (Aug 9, 2011)

As I was aware of it, the only Muslim rule against pictures or depictions are prohibiting such images of the Prophet Mohamed (_Peace be upon him_) (Aside from general respect of another's religion, I'm not stupid I know there are Muslims on the Internets) on the general smart rule that it is to prevent idolatry of the man, I am not aware that it is not permitted in Islam to take pictures of people or women in particular. 

I am aware however that violence is looked down on in every major religion and in any event if he didn't hit her she had no right to hit him. There's taking a stand and then there's initiating a confrontation and assaulting a man in front of his kid in public.



Nihonjin said:


> God I hate religion..


That's a funny statement. 

A religious based exhortation followed by a statement of disdain for religion. Mind you not everyone who believes in a higher power is religious, certainly not I. 

Just another example of the cultural osmosis of religion over time. 

More prominent since instead of saying it instinctively you actively typed it. 


Xyloxi said:


> She should have set herself on fire and Falcon Punched the shit out of him.


And that would've been awesome.


-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I thought only buddhist did that... well minus the falcon punch.


And yet without the venerated Falcon Punch it was still...awesome.


Hi Im God said:


> Oh please white conservative victims....
> 
> I'm sure the future Anders Breiviks of the world will be galvanized by such obvious infringements on white rights.
> 
> ...


Wow, point blank range. And her family does appear to dominate the shot. Did he need people to test an auto-zoom or what?

Regardless however she didn't have the right to hit him. And she shouldn't have just initiated a confrontation where she may have hit him. 

Shit if celebrities can't shoot Paparazzi on sight then she doesn't get to punch a dude, especially not in front of his kid like that. And who punches a camera.

Would she have paid for the camera if she had successfully broken it? If she had broken a tooth would he have been able to successfully sue? 

I can understand if the cop was just trying to defuse a heated situation, but she did assault him, and he was apparently willing to press charges. 

Now I'm not familiar with this paper, so if he was just trying to instigate an incident by taking pictures of her family then this is one for the good guys I suppose, but seriously you don't just get to whack people. 

All that said, if not for the religious clash of the situation this would be a completely meaningless blip on the radar of life.


----------



## Perseverance (Aug 9, 2011)

Fucking legend, black people in the mid 20th century in America should've done the same when told to get to the back of the bus, motherf***ers


----------



## Toby (Aug 9, 2011)

I lived in Toronto up until last May, and yes, there is an untold number of fucking hipsters that will produce a camera out of nowhere. So this woman is right to keep the fucking menace down.

If I were the cop I'd write the man a ticket for disturbing the peace.


----------



## Dionysus (Aug 9, 2011)

How dare he take her soul like that.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 9, 2011)

its not like anyone was hurt, trying to get charges filed against her seems like an overreaction.


----------



## xpeed (Aug 10, 2011)

MotherF***** if it was me, I wouldn't give a rat-ass about religion or sex and knock her ass down if she punched me in the face, and then declare self-defense.  I bet if she did that in Russia, she wouldn't be able to walk.

How would you guys know if he really was taking pictures of her or just taking random pictures to test out the camera?  Heck, I do it all the time when I get new lenses for my camera and most of the time I end up deleting them.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

xpeed said:


> MotherF***** if it was me, I wouldn't give a rat-ass about religion or sex and knock her ass down if she punched me in the face, and then declare self-defense.  I bet if she did that in Russia, she wouldn't be able to walk.


Personally, if I was him, I wouldn't have raised a hand to her. But that's just me, so...yea, self defense and all that. :sweat



xpeed said:


> How would you guys know if he really was taking pictures of her or just taking random pictures to test out the camera?  Heck, I do it all the time when I get new lenses for my camera and most of the time I end up deleting them.



That's a good point, people do randomly take pictures with new cameras. My mother, brother and sister does exactly that. *But* if those images came before she punched him, it looks like he was _purposely_ taking pictures of her...unless he was aiming for that ugly car behind them.

Though again, you still don't have a right to deck someone over it. >.<


----------



## xpeed (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> That's a good point, people do randomly take pictures with new cameras. My mother, brother and sister does exactly that. *But* if those images came before she punched him, it looks like he was _purposely_ taking pictures of her...unless he was aiming for that ugly car behind them.
> 
> Though again, you still don't have a right to deck someone over it. >.<




Only if they attack me first for some personal unreasonable reason.  Then again, I probably would not raise my hand in that situation, but it is a bit nerve racking that cops won't help you since what she did was battery on a person.  But what do I know about Canadian laws?


----------



## impersonal (Aug 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I see so whenever you want to take a picture of a public place you should run around and ask every person present if they don't mind having you take their picture?  And if they say no are you supposed to wait until they leave and then ask the new batch of people?
> 
> They should be suing any news agency that happens to have people walking in the background as they cover events.
> 
> If you don't want your picture taken then don't go to places where people take pictures.  Its pretty basic logic.  I wouldn't go to a baseball game then if I was put up on the jumbotron, run into the control booth and threaten the guy running it.


I think it's been pointed out already but I'll say it again anyway. There's a difference between _taking a picture of a public place_ and _taking a picture of an individual who is in a public place_. If you're walking down the Champs Elys?es, say, of course you're going to be on a few pictures. People don't object to that.

But sitting in front of someone and taking a close-up of his face is different, whether is it's on the Champs Elys?es or anywhere else. It's not respectful and if the person is the type that does not take kindly to disrespect, you're going to be in trouble.

Consider these two examples, both taken in a caf? on the champs elys?es:


*Spoiler*: _If the people did not agree to the picture, this could get you into trouble because it is disrespectful_ 








It's common sense, really. Don't want to get punched, don't treat other people like shit.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I think it's been pointed out already but I'll say it again anyway. There's a difference between _taking a picture of a public place_ and _taking a picture of an individual who is in a public place_. If you're walking down the Champs Elys?es, say, of course you're going to be on a few pictures. People don't object to that.
> 
> But sitting in front of someone and taking a close-up of his face is different, whether is it's on the Champs Elys?es or anywhere else. It's not respectful and if the person is the type that does not take kindly to disrespect, you're going to be in trouble.
> 
> ...



Did it say he was taking pictures up close of her face?

And even if he did you can take photos of someone who is in a public place.  You can take pictures of ANYTHING that is in a public place or clearly visible from public land.

The way people are reacting you'd think he was trying to take pictures up her dress.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> *Did it say he was taking pictures up close of her face?
> *
> And even if he did you can take photos of someone who is in a public place.  You can take pictures of ANYTHING that is in a public place or clearly visible from public land.
> 
> The way people are reacting you'd think he was trying to take pictures up her dress.


This is the photo.

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Seph (Aug 10, 2011)

Seems like he was trying to take a photo of the Muslims, not her alone. I don't see how that's wrong.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

He shouldn't have gotten punched but oh well things happen, Muslim women or not. And to all the people saying it's because she was muslim, let's not forget the muslims who get banged up in Guantanemo Bay without charge, so no, no-one is afraid of the muslims.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> This is the photo.
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



Until she ran at him I don't think they were the focus of the picture.  If she had just kept her back to him then I doubt anyone who saw this pic (assuming he didn't delete it) would even give them a second look.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Until she ran at him I don't think they were the focus of the picture.  If she had just kept her back to him then I doubt anyone who saw this pic (assuming he didn't delete it) would even give them a second look.



Are you being serious?


----------



## Seph (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> He shouldn't have gotten punched but oh well things happen, Muslim women or not. And to all the people saying it's because she was muslim, let's not forget the muslims who get banged up in Guantanemo Bay without charge, so no, no-one is afraid of the muslims.



Yeah, no one except the entire world.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Yeah, no one except the entire world.



Guantanemo Bay


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

Gunners said:


> Are you being serious?



Ever taken a photography class?  I had tons of pics I took of just random places as I was walking around trying out the camera (as this guy claims he was doing).  Just because someone happens to be in one of the pictures doesn't mean I was going out of my way to photograph them, it just means they happened to be where I was shooting.

This particular pic isn't really a good representation of what he was doing _before_ she noticed him.  I'm sure after she got up and ran at him that his camera was sure as shit pointed at her.

And lets say for the sake of argument they were the focus, so the fuck what?  So I can attack anyone who takes a picture of me in public?


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 10, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> This is the photo.
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



While I still think the woman is a cunt for becoming violent, that picture seems a bit too focused on her and the other muslims around...

In that case, both are to blame : idiot photographer and stupid woman.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> While I still think the woman is a cunt for becoming violent, that picture seems a bit too focused on her and the other muslims around...
> 
> In that case, both are to blame : idiot photographer and stupid woman.



They're off center, low and not completely in focus.  Do you really think he couldn't put them in a better view than that if he were actually trying to focus on them?


----------



## Seph (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Guantanemo Bay



Yeah, since no one is scared of terrorist attacks killing thousands of people because of a prison. Genius.


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> They're off center, low and not completely in focus.  Do you really think he couldn't put them in a better view than that if he were actually trying to focus on them?



Yeah, but the scenery behind them isn't in the focus either, as the camera doesn't seem "up" enough, and it actually doesn't capture the neighbourhood's mood.

I mean, if I were a photographer taking pics of the city, I'd try to focus on the buildings more seriously.

Or he simply sucks at taking pics any tourist is better at. I don't take picture of half of the Eiffel Tower, unless I'm taking something that's in front of it.

Sorry, but the pic doesn't seem "coincidental".


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Yeah, since no one is scared of terrorist attacks killing thousands of people because of a prison. Genius.



Are you seriously retarded, or just pretending, let me explain. I'm saying people aren't as scared of muslims as you guys are making out. I used Guantanemo Bay as an example because the police forces happily put people there, with no good reason and without evidence, SOMETHING THEY WOULD NOT DO IF THEY WERE SO SCARED OF MUSLIMS.

Now stop talking.


----------



## Seph (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Are you seriously retarded, or just pretending, let me explain. I'm saying people aren't as scared of muslims as you guys are making out. I used Guantanemo Bay as an example because the police forces happily put people there, with no good reason and without evidence, SOMETHING THEY WOULD NOT DO IF THEY WERE SO SCARED OF MUSLIMS.
> 
> Now stop talking.



Firstly, it's Guantan*a*mo Bay. Learn to spell.

Secondly, it's not a prison *specifically* for Muslims. It's a prison for detainees from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Thirdly, the fact that they "happily put people there with no good reason and without evidence" isn't a good enough fact to prove that they're not scared of Muslims.

Fourthly, why the fuck wouldn't America be scared of another 9/11 happening? Why the fuck wouldn't they be scared of thousands of people dying again?

Fifthly, there are only 171 detainees left in the prison. It's not as big of a deal as you make it seem.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> Yeah, but the scenery behind them isn't in the focus either, as the camera doesn't seem "up" enough, and it actually doesn't capture the neighbourhood's mood.
> 
> I mean, if I were a photographer taking pics of the city, I'd try to focus on the buildings more seriously.
> 
> ...



When you're just testing out a camera you don't necessary take pictures of anything in particular.  You just take pictures.  And oddly enough sometimes there happens to be stuff in those pictures.


----------



## Sophie (Aug 10, 2011)

Never piss off a muslim. You never know where the trigger is hidden .


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 10, 2011)

OH MY FUCKING GOD HOW DOES "SOMEONE PUNCHED SOMEONE ELSE" GET TO 217 FUCKING POST?


----------



## Watchman (Aug 10, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> OH MY FUCKING GOD HOW DOES "SOMEONE PUNCHED SOMEONE ELSE" GET TO 217 FUCKING POST?



Add Muslim. Instant controversy.

If it had been an Israeli punching a Muslim or vice versa, we'd have at least 300 posts by now.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Watchman said:


> Add Muslim. Instant controversy.
> 
> If it had been an Israeli punching a Muslim or vice versa, we'd have at least 300 posts by now.



Yeah the Muslim Defense Force didn't even show up.


----------



## Syed (Aug 10, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> OH MY FUCKING GOD HOW DOES "SOMEONE PUNCHED SOMEONE ELSE" GET TO 217 FUCKING POST?



This forum is full of tards.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> OH MY FUCKING GOD HOW DOES "SOMEONE PUNCHED SOMEONE ELSE" GET TO 217 FUCKING POST?



Its only gone this long because some people are trying to justify it.


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah the Muslim Defense Force didn't even show up.



From your speech, I get the vibe that you wish there wasn't any defense for Muslims, that you would have loved to bash them all day long without anyone dare commenting?


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Firstly, it's Guantan*a*mo Bay. Learn to spell.
> 
> Secondly, it's not a prison *specifically* for Muslims. It's a prison for detainees from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
> 
> ...



Firstly, do you want a medal for checking how to spell it? I hope not

Secondly, it mainly holds muslims(and I didn't say it was specifically for muslims), and you fail because it's for ''terrorists'' not iraq or afghanistan war detainees as you claim, if you're gonna check how to spell something at least check what it actually is in the process.

Thirdly yes it is.

Fourthly, go watch loose change or one of the other hundred videos exposing the truth behind 9/11

Lastly, there have been more than that over the time it's been open, and 100s or not, being kept there for no good reason with no hope of trial, is a disgrace in and of itself.

So you fail


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> From your speech, I get the vibe that you wish there wasn't any defense for Muslims, that you would have loved to bash them all day long without anyone dare commenting?



Do I think there is a defense for someone punching someone in the face over a picture like this, there isn't. What the hell are you talking about? You think she was right?


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do I think there is a defense for someone punching someone in the face over a picture like this, there isn't. What the hell are you talking about? You think she was right?



This thread has had people wishing for a "Hitler" for Muslims, Muslims likened to cancer and plague and Muslims being called barbarians. A defense is strongly needed for these disgusting views. 

As for punching someone? Nobody should approve of that, however, the issue gets sensitive when an entire religion is blamed and whatnot.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> This thread has had people wishing for a "Hitler" for Muslims, Muslims likened to cancer and plague and Muslims being called barbarians. A defense is strongly needed for these disgusting views.
> 
> As for punching someone? Nobody should approve of that, however, the issue gets sensitive when an entire religion is blamed and whatnot.



LOL! Welcome to NF Cafe that's just the beginning.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> This thread has had people wishing for a "Hitler" for Muslims, Muslims likened to cancer and plague and Muslims being called barbarians. A defense is strongly needed for these disgusting views.
> 
> As for punching someone? Nobody should approve of that, however, the issue gets sensitive when an entire religion is blamed and whatnot.



Did I do any of that? I don't think so my first post was saying that I hoped there was video of this and if my memory serves me correctly, my second post was saying that this kid got to see his dad turned into a little bitch. 


And its no secret that Muslims here on the forums and some people who defend any action taken by Muslims have stormed threads before and defended anything done by Muslims no matter how wrong or stupid the thing was. An entire religion is blamed because that religions actions in the past are the only reason this bitch doesn't have a ticket right now.


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And its no secret that Muslims here on the forums and some people who defend any action taken by Muslims have stormed threads before and defended anything done by Muslims no matter how wrong or stupid the thing was. An entire religion is blamed because that religions actions in the past are the only reason this bitch doesn't have a ticket right now.



Oddly enough from the evidence I gather, its actually the quite opposite. People finding excuses to bitch about Muslims on the smallest of issues. This thread is an evidence of that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> Oddly enough from the evidence I gather, its actually the quite opposite. People finding excuses to bitch about Muslims on the smallest of issues. This thread is an evidence of that.



People here bitch about Christians a lot too, I don't see you in those threads whining about it. 


The mere fact that you're in here saying this just goes to show how much undue sympathy Muslims get. When you do something wrong people bitch about it, and when your religion is the cause of an entire area of the world being upheaval and you're allowed to spew hate speech and assault others because your religion scares people you better believe people are going to bitch. 


Do you think if I pitched a fit because I thought that you could steal my Catholic soul by taking a picture of me and I hauled off and punched the guy? I'd have my black ass in jail right now or I'd have a hefty assault ticket.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Misc, don't bother, he's a known bigot and Islam basher.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Misc, don't bother, he's a known bigot and Islam basher.



Yeah don't bother, I'm speaking too much fucking sense right now. Aren't you one of the known Muslim whiners I was talking about. 


Everyone don your slickers and boots, we're about to get a flood of tears.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Misc, don't bother, he's a known bigot and Islam basher.



His points are valid, though. You dont see people who complain about christianity being threatened w/ death or beheading by christians. People who make cartoons mocking jesus dont have to go into hiding afterwards, ect ect.

Islam has PROVEN itself to be very intolerant of anybody who critiques it. The people who follow it have, except for the ones who live in the USA, proven to be very resistant to assimilation into the countries they move too (example : england).

So yes, islam is going to be the #1`target for bitching and hate. Until it grows up as a religion and leaves its middle-ages mindset and social practices, nothing will change.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Misc, don't bother, he's a known bigot and Islam basher.



you do realize you can hate a religion and not individuals, right? i loathe islam & christianity & judaism, but i still have friends in each. someone not liking islam /=/ bigot. if he were saying everyone who practices islam is intolerable and lost and deserves to die he'd be a bigot...but he isn't saying that.


----------



## Syed (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah don't bother, I'm speaking too much fucking sense right now. Aren't you one of the known Muslim whiners I was talking about.
> 
> 
> Everyone don your slickers and boots, we're about to get a flood of tears.



Yeah the lady punching the dude was bad. Yet this thread is a hot issue atm. Probably cause she's a Muslim. If it were any other person of religous background who punched the dude I'm sure this thread would have died off a long time ago.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

Syed said:


> Yeah the lady punching the dude was bad. Yet this thread is a hot issue atm. Probably cause she's a Muslim. If it were any other person of religous background who punched the dude I'm sure this thread would have died off a long time ago.



probably it would have died because the person who did the punching would have gotten the correct punishment from the law. did you think of that?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> His points are valid, though. You dont see people who complain about christianity being threatened w/ death or beheading by christians. People who make cartoons mocking jesus dont have to go into hiding afterwards, ect ect.
> 
> Islam has PROVEN itself to be very intolerant of anybody who critiques it. The people who follow it have, except for the ones who live in the USA, proven to be very resistant to assimilation into the countries they move too (example : england).
> 
> So yes, islam is going to be the #1`target for bitching and hate. Until it grows up as a religion and leaves its middle-ages mindset and social practices, nothing will change.





Damaris said:


> you do realize you can hate a religion and not individuals, right? i loathe islam & christianity & judaism, but i still have friends in each. someone not liking islam /=/ bigot. if he were saying everyone who practices islam is intolerable and lost and deserves to die he'd be a bigot...but he isn't saying that.



Apparently I need not fight my own battles. 




Syed said:


> Yeah the lady punching the dude was bad. Yet this thread is a hot issue atm. Probably cause she's a Muslim. If it were any other person of religous background who punched the dude I'm sure this thread would have died off a long time ago.




Are you too slow to figure it out? Its a hot issue because she went free because she was Muslim. If she was just Jane Stevens, white woman. Or Lawanda Jackson, the black DMV worker and she did this her ass would have at least gotten a ticket and possibly been arrested.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah don't bother, I'm speaking too much fucking sense right now. Aren't you one of the known Muslim whiners I was talking about.
> 
> 
> Everyone don your slickers and boots, we're about to get a flood of tears.



Well i'm sure every muslim who disagrees with you on this board is a known muslim whiner to you.



Wolfarus said:


> His points are valid, though. You dont see people who complain about christianity being threatened w/ death or beheading by christians. People who make cartoons mocking jesus dont have to go into hiding afterwards, ect ect.
> 
> Islam has PROVEN itself to be very intolerant of anybody who critiques it. The people who follow it have, except for the ones who live in the USA, proven to be very resistant to assimilation into the countries they move too (example : england).
> 
> So yes, islam is going to be the #1`target for bitching and hate. Until it grows up as a religion and leaves its middle-ages mindset and social practices, nothing will change.



Well the cartoon making thing was especially sensitive because it is not allowed in Islam to draw or show the Prophets face. Even is Islamic films which show his life, his ''face'' is never shown. So if you've got issues such as this in mind then of course Muslims are going to make a fuss about it.

What about the guy who wanted to burn the Qurans wasn't he a priest of some sort? 

Of course people will get mad when their beliefs are blatantly ridiculed and that's true of any religion or society.



Damaris said:


> you do realize you can hate a religion and not individuals, right? i loathe islam & christianity & judaism, but i still have friends in each. someone not liking islam /=/ bigot. if he were saying everyone who practices islam is intolerable and lost and deserves to die he'd be a bigot...but he isn't saying that.



I'm saying he's a bigot because he doesn't know anything about Islam and yet has these strong views. It's not specifically to do with this thread.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Apparently I need not fight my own battles.



i'm reverse white-knighting you, just roll with it.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are you too slow to figure it out? Its a hot issue because she went free because she was Muslim. If she was just Jane Stevens, white woman. Or Lawanda Jackson, the black DMV worker and she did this her ass would have at least gotten a ticket and possibly been arrested.



Everyones acting like their opinion is fact. 
Was there any update where the officer confirmed he let her go because she was muslim?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Well i'm sure every muslim who disagrees with you on this board is a known muslim whiner to you.



If they're whining about stuff they shouldn't be doing and get away with like this then yes. 



No.1Moose said:


> Well the cartoon making thing was especially sensitive because it is not allowed in Islam to draw or show the Prophets face. Even is Islamic films which show his life, his ''face'' is never shown. So if you've got issues such as this in mind then of course Muslims are going to make a fuss about it.
> 
> What about the guy who wanted to burn the Qurans wasn't he a priest of some sort?
> 
> Of course people will get mad when their beliefs are blatantly ridiculed and that's true of any religion or society.



News Flash: No one is giving a fuck about Islam's hurt feelings until more Muslims show some incentive and do the same. People walk on egg shells to not offend Muslims but how often does that same respect get given back by Muslims. 


If someone draws themselves dick slapping Mohammad the most you have the right to do is bitch about it, you can't kill them or threaten their family and the like, that's why people here are fed up with Muslims.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If they're whining about stuff they shouldn't be doing and get away with like this then yes.



huh



> News Flash: No one is giving a fuck about Islam's hurt feelings until more Muslims show some incentive and do the same. People walk on egg shells to not offend Muslims but how often does that same respect get given back by Muslims.



Yeye that's all fine and dandy, can you point out to me what kind of things Muslims have done on a large scale to offend a certain group? Something like a draw Muhammad(pbuh) day?


And wait hold up, I thought everyone was scared of muslims? You just contradicted yourself.


> If someone draws themselves dick slapping Mohammad the most you have the right to do is bitch about it, you can't kill them or threaten their family and the like, that's why people here are fed up with Muslims.



Well obviously you've never had a belief strong enough worth dying for, that's why you are unable to understand people's anger.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Well the cartoon making thing was especially sensitive because it is not allowed in Islam to draw or show the Prophets face. Even is Islamic films which show his life, his ''face'' is never shown. So if you've got issues such as this in mind then of course Muslims are going to make a fuss about it.
> 
> What about the guy who wanted to burn the Qurans wasn't he a priest of some sort?
> 
> Of course people will get mad when their beliefs are blatantly ridiculed and that's true of any religion or society.



But the difference is in the reactions. When was the last time you heard about a christian(s) screaming for someobdy's head because they insulted jesus/christianity, or even burned a bible? Now when was the last time you heard about a muslim(s) doing the same thing, because somebody insulted mohammed / islam, or burned a quran? Answer : what time is it?

As i said, its allah' about the intolerence that currend-age islam has for anybody who speaks against it or its members.


----------



## Syed (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are you too slow to figure it out? Its a hot issue because she went free because she was Muslim. If she was just Jane Stevens, white woman. Or Lawanda Jackson, the black DMV worker and she did this her ass would have at least gotten a ticket and possibly been arrested.



This thread seems to have the highest number of posts. When something similar happens not involving a Muslim we'll see how high the post count goes. Still saying this involving a Muslim is the reason this is such a hot issue.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Well obviously you've never had a belief strong enough worth dying for, that's why you are unable to understand people's anger.



no one has the right to kill other people for committing an act which doesn't hurt anyone, but merely offends.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> But the difference is in the reactions. When was the last time you heard about a christian(s) screaming for someobdy's head because they insulted jesus/christianity, or even burned a bible? Now when was the last time you heard about a muslim(s) doing the same thing, because somebody insulted mohammed / islam, or burned a quran? Answer : what time is it?
> 
> As i said, its allah' about the intolerence that currend-age islam has for anybody who speaks against it or its members.



Yeah Muslims take it that much more seriously.



Damaris said:


> no one has the right to kill other people for committing an act which doesn't hurt anyone, but merely offends.



I never said they had the right.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> huh
> 
> Yeye that's all fine and dandy, can you point out to me what kind of things Muslims have done on a large scale to offend a certain group? Something like a draw Muhammad(pbuh) day?




Yeah and while I laughed I didn't draw Mohammad or participate in the BS going on because it just turned into Muslims yelling and non-Muslims yelling. 




No.1Moose said:


> And wait hold up, I thought everyone was scared of muslims? You just contradicted yourself.




People react differently to fear. Like when I'm really scared I get very sarcastic...its a defense mechanism and it's not always good for all situations. And while I don't fear all Muslims I do think that the actions of some and the wishes of some are scary. 




No.1Moose said:


> Well obviously you've never had a belief strong enough worth dying for, that's why you are unable to understand people's anger.




I believe in God and I would like to think I would be willing to die for my belief, but I wouldn't let someone do it without a fight. And I have friends and family I would die for, friends and family I would give my life or kill to protect . 


But killing for belief is different than dying for one...and I've got to be very serious about something to take a life for a belief because when you take a life you give that person no chance to appeal or apologize or make up for it or become a better person. When you kill someone you better make damn sure you're doing it for something worthwhile. 


Mohammad was just a man, he's not your God and he's on the level of Elijah or Ezekiel or Moses or someone like this, I wouldn't kill for someone insulting Moses, or any of them. I wouldn't kill if someone insulted my God. If God wanted them dead he could very easily make it so, he doesn't need my minuscule ass to fight his battles. 


Many Muslims have such an insecurity to criticism that they don't know how to debate or take it but they seem so good at dishing it out.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Yeah Muslims take it that much more seriously.



And, given today's modern world and the (mostly) enlightened / tolerant mindset that christianity has achived (at least when it comes to people who speak against christianity) you see no problem with muslims behaving like that?


----------



## Syed (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> But the difference is in the reactions. When was the last time you heard about a christian(s) screaming for someobdy's head because they insulted jesus/christianity, or even burned a bible? Now when was the last time you heard about a muslim(s) doing the same thing, because somebody insulted mohammed / islam, or burned a quran? Answer : what time is it?
> 
> As i said, its allah' about the intolerence that currend-age islam has for anybody who speaks against it or its members.



So if I go on national television and burn a bible or use it as toilet paper, no problems right? 

If I do similar things to the Torah, there should be no backlash I'm guessing?

Or if I do similar things to the Vedas or other holy Hindu texts, no Hindu would riot in India? 

If I offend any religion except Islam then I should be able to do so without being threatened or attacked/killed. Is this a gaurentee?


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I believe in God and I would like to think I would be willing to die for my belief, but I wouldn't let someone do it without a fight. And I have friends and family I would die for, friends and family I would give my life or kill to protect .
> 
> 
> But killing for belief is different than dying for one...and I've got to be very serious about something to take a life for a belief because when you take a life you give that person no chance to appeal or apologize or make up for it or become a better person. When you kill someone you better make damn sure you're doing it for something worthwhile.
> ...



Some muslims saw that as a huge disrespect and saw the only way to regain their respect and defend their religion would be violence. However I'm sure the places where killings actually took place were places which were not 1st world countries. Meaning the culture and surroundings also aided the thoughts of violence.

Actually we muslims try to live by his life and take his life as a guide, in essence we see him as a perfect human being, with perfect character, so an insult to him is seen as very serious. Not to mention the blatant disregard of feelings to so mock a religious figure so publicly and in a jokey way.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's right or should be excused, just that it's understandable.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I never said they had the right.






No.1Moose said:


> Well obviously you've never had a belief strong enough worth dying for, that's why you are unable to understand people's anger.



you might not have said it outright, but you had no problem implying that someone who can't get in the mindset of "kill for my belief" just doesn't ~understand, and is therefore in the wrong.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Syed said:


> So if I go on national television and burn a bible or use it as toilet paper, no problems right?
> 
> If I do similar things to the Torah, there should be no backlash I'm guessing?
> 
> ...



Nothing is guranteed. Nothing.

But, id be willing to lay down a bet that you wouldnt suffer much more then some uncomfortable looks and maybe, MAYBE some verbal chastising from the more uppity christians / jews. As for india, i cant speak for them because i dont live there.

Cant say the same for somebody who critisizes islam, now can you?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

Syed said:


> So if I go on national television and burn a bible or use it as toilet paper, no problems right?
> 
> If I do similar things to the Torah, there should be no backlash I'm guessing?
> 
> ...



I might be offended but I really wouldn't come after you or threaten to kill you. Now you've probably seen it before, but if anyone here has seen someone take a shot at one of my friends or talk shit about them you'd see me get mad. 


Everyone here thinks I'm angry and screaming at the screen or something...this isn't me mad...this is like foreplay or something. 



No.1Moose said:


> Some muslims saw that as a huge disrespect and saw the only way to regain their respect and defend their religion would be violence. However I'm sure the places where killings actually took place were places which were not 1st world countries. Meaning the culture and surroundings also aided the thoughts of violence.
> 
> Actually we muslims try to live by his life and take his life as a guide, in essence we see him as a perfect human being, with perfect character, so an insult to him is seen as very serious. Not to mention the blatant disregard of feelings to so mock a religious figure so publicly and in a jokey way.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's right or should be excused,* just that it's understandable.*



That right there is the issue we have, its not understandable at all. There's no reasonable person who would say it was.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Damaris said:


> you might not have said it outright, but you had no problem implying that someone who can't get in the mindset of "kill for my belief" just doesn't ~understand, *and is therefore in the wrong.*



That last bit I didn't say. Sure you don't understand and I said why, doesn't mean you're wrong though.


----------



## Damaris (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> That last bit I didn't say. Sure you don't understand and I said why, doesn't mean you're wrong though.



hence the word "implying". if you accuse someone of not understanding you usually aren't saying they're in the right.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's no reasonable person who would say it was.



I'm pretty sure there is.



Damaris said:


> hence the word "implying". if you accuse someone of not understanding you usually aren't saying they're in the right.



Yeah I meant I didn't imply that. I just said you don't understand where they're coming from.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I'm pretty sure there is.



There really isn't, its impossible. Saying its understandable why someone would kill over a drawing...maybe you mean to say you understand why they're doing as in the reason is clear but not that the reason is understandable as in the reason makes sense from a standpoint of lunacy. 


And yes these people are lunatics. Not all Muslims, but the ones who would do this.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There really isn't, its impossible. Saying its understandable why someone would kill over a drawing...maybe you mean to say you understand why they're doing as in the reason is clear but not that the reason is understandable as in the reason makes sense from a standpoint of lunacy.
> 
> 
> And yes these people are lunatics. Not all Muslims, but the ones who would do this.



As I explained before it's not about the drawing, it's the disrespect it signifies.


----------



## Syed (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> Nothing is guranteed. Nothing.
> 
> But, id be willing to lay down a bet that you wouldnt suffer much more then some uncomfortable looks and maybe, MAYBE some verbal chastising from the more uppity christians / jews. As for india, i cant speak for them because i dont live there.
> 
> Cant say the same for somebody who critisizes islam, now can you?



There is a chance that you could be attacked, I wouldn't say one would get away with criticizing Judaism or Christianity without it totally. The evangelicals seem crazy enough to do so as do some of the hardcore religous Jews in Israel. 

Some people get away with it without being attacked. Those Westboro guys are proof. Again it depends on the country. Most Muslims won't attack in a first world country but some Muslims in 3rd world countries would. The  Westboro church were lucky they were in America and not in a ME or a South Asian country.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Aug 10, 2011)

Why can't we just all agree that EVERY RELIGION, ATHIESTS/AGNOSTICS INCLUDED HAVE CRAZY FANATICAL IDEOLOGUES! They also have things their religion may dictate that clash with others. Some people follow their religious doctrine like it is law. some only when its convenient. some use the values and ethics of it in their day to day lives but still believe their countries laws are absolute. And when something happens when a person or a group of people do something that others regard as religious fanaticism, just realize that those people don't speak for all others in their religion. And until god itself comes down and turns water into economic stability, this will never change.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> As I explained before it's not about the drawing, it's the disrespect it signifies.



I don't see how that makes it sane or understandable.  So if someone disrespects you its ok to riot and threaten to kill them?


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> As I explained before it's not about the drawing, it's the disrespect it signifies.


People are disrespected all the time, are they allowed and excused if they start threatening people and killing them?



Syed said:


> There is a chance that you could be attacked, I wouldn't say one would get away with criticizing Judaism or Christianity without it totally. *The evangelicals seem crazy enough to do so as do some of the hardcore religous Jews in Israel. *
> 
> Some people get away with it without being attacked. Those Westboro guys are proof. Again it depends on the country. Most Muslims won't attack in a first world country but some Muslims in 3rd world countries would. The  Westboro church were lucky they were in America and not in a ME or a South Asian country.



Yea, and that's why we see so many stories of it, right? Christianity is made fun of constantly and you don't see us throwing fits and threatening people's lives. :/


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Aug 10, 2011)

As a Muslim I'll be the first to say that the woman is completely at fault here.  Not that this wasn't obvious already.  

She should definitely have been charged for assault.

If you are going to live in a country, you better be ready to abide by their law, whether you like it or not. Don't want to get photographed?  Don't wander around in a public place.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> People are disrespected all the time, are they allowed and excused if they start threatening people and killing them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, and that's why we see so many stories of it, right? *Christianity is made fun of constantly and you don't see us throwing fits and threatening people's lives. *:/



My two cents: that's probably because Christianity has been "mocked" for several decades. The Western christian probably have been desentized to the "mockery" (or whatever you want to call it) of their religion. TV shows such as Family guy have "mocked"  the christian jesus etc so much that people get used to it and laugh it off.  

Other religions do not as much - or did not in fact until very recently and those of faiths such as hinduism and islam are not as desentazied.

One must also remember other parts of the world religion is still a sensitive issue and people are very sensitive to it. 



----------------------------------

Back to thread

The Women and the people overreacted.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 10, 2011)

What is Jumu'ah?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What is Jumu'ah?



 Jumu'ah= sunday prayer at church


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What is Jumu'ah?



It is a prayer held every friday after/during (after noon) a certain time of the day.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> It is a prayer held every friday after/during (after noon) a certain time of the day.



Thank you Terra


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> *I know I'm going to get negged but it will be totally worth it *
> Happy Ramadan everybody Love you lots



Even the grammar in that picture fails, tells you something don't it


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Even the grammar in that picture fails, tells you something don't it



I use Internet grammar damn it  !!!!


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> I use Internet grammar damn it  !!!!



So you made it yourself? Wow even sadder than I thought


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> So you made it yourself? Wow even sadder than I thought



If it's any consolation to you I donated $50 to a local mosque attended Jumu'ah  had a conversation with an immam and wrote a 5 page essay On Islam and have a Quran on my bookshelf  that I'm trying to read


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 10, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> If it's any consolation to you I donated $50 to a local mosque attended Jumu'ah  had a conversation with an immam and wrote a 5 page essay On Islam and have a Quran on my bookshelf  that I'm trying to read



But you're not muslim?


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Aug 10, 2011)

Go Muslim Woman


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> But you're not muslim?



No I'm a Taoist

 but it was really fun everybody was nice and welcoming and the imam preached about tolerance and love. 

I have a bible in my house that I have yet to read as well


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> So you made it yourself? Wow even sadder than I thought



What's with the 'tude, dude? 

It was just a harmless joke.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> What's with the 'tude, dude?
> 
> It was just a harmless joke.



No No Terra I'll just take it down *sigh* people don't have thick skin here


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> No No Terra I'll just take it down *sigh* people don't _have thick skin here_



That's the problem. Anything they think is disrespectful or "bad" makes makes it okay to insult, attack or threaten. :/


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> That's the problem. Anything they think is disrespectful or "bad" makes makes it okay to insult, attack or threaten. :/



What does the republican party have to do w/ this topic?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> What does the republican party have to do w/ this topic?



Absolutely nothing. But someone will bring it in to point some blame.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> What does the republican party have to do w/ this topic?



Everything


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> What does the republican party have to do w/ this topic?



             .


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> That's the problem. Anything they think is disrespectful or "bad" makes makes it okay to insult, attack or threaten. :/



I like how you have generalized and categorized Muslims as 'they'. Besides that, the Muslim member above only expressed a slight distaste, not insult, attack or threaten. However if you think tolerance is about telling someone who makes a joke out of something valuable to you to carry on, then you go right ahead.


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People here bitch about Christians a lot too, I don't see you in those threads whining about it.
> 
> 
> The mere fact that you're in here saying this just goes to show how much undue sympathy Muslims get. When you do something wrong people bitch about it, and when your religion is the cause of an entire area of the world being upheaval and you're allowed to spew hate speech and assault others because your religion scares people you better believe people are going to bitch.
> ...



You may have a point, I am not going to argue here. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time Christianity got insulted here? Was it when it caused the deaths of those 90 odd Norwegian kids and then proceeded to sentence them to hell?


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> I like how you have generalized and categorized Muslims as 'they'. Besides that, the Muslim member above only expressed a slight distaste, not insult, attack or threaten. However if you think tolerance is about telling someone who makes a joke out of something valuable to you to carry on, then you go right ahead.



I never said he did threaten or insult him. My "they" was directed at the ones with thin skin; the Muslim woman, Moose and anyone else who thinks that way or acts as he or she did. No, I'm talking about people who get upset over their religion to the point where they are rude etc etc, not because he didn't think his joke was funny.

Stop making assumptions of people's posts.
[YOUTUBE]TzYeA-3aqcU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bishop (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> You may have a point, I am not going to argue here. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time Christianity got insulted here? Was it when it caused the deaths of those 90 odd Norwegian kids and then proceeded to sentence them to hell?



Go to _ANY_ Atheist thread. Christianity is bashed her daily. DAILY. Also, you can't compare an incident (which can be marked as an exception in the religion) to what can perceived as a norm for anther. Not jumping in or anything though.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Absolutely nothing. But someone will bring it in to point some blame.



Yeaahh.. you kind of missed my joke. I quoted what terra said, implying that it applies to the republican party just as much as it applies to intolerant muslims..


----------



## Missc (Aug 10, 2011)

If someone is rude/insults you, is it immoral to be rude/insult them?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 10, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> Yeaahh.. you kind of missed my joke. I quoted what terra said, implying that it applies to the republican party just as much as it applies to intolerant muslims..



**


----------



## Bishop (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> If someone is rude/insults you, is it immoral to be rude/insult them?



Depends on your age and maturity; at some point someone can be the bigger person. But in this case I see your point exactly, continue on and stand up for yourself. 

But on here, it is packed with immoral liberals who bash you, and when you defend, they gang up on you. And when you show logic, they change the topic and bash you on that. And when you show proof, they discredit it and bash you on it. And when you dismantle their argument, they will say you misinterpreted everything and bash you for it.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 10, 2011)

Missc said:


> If someone is rude/insults you, is it immoral to be rude/insult them?



Here Zee  joke pic in question


----------



## Missc (Aug 11, 2011)

No offence but your only insulting your self with that lame joke


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 11, 2011)

Missc said:


> No offence but your only insulting your self with that lame joke



Oh But you see I already Know I'm a worthless loser so no harm there


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

> But on here, it is packed with immoral liberals who bash you, and when you defend, they gang up on you. And when you show logic, they change the topic and bash you on that. And when you show proof, they discredit it and bash you on it. And when you dismantle their argument, they will say you misinterpreted everything and bash you for it.



I have never seen a single Muslim on this forum that used logic. Not a single one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2011)

Missc said:


> You may have a point, I am not going to argue here. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time Christianity got insulted here? Was it when it caused the deaths of those 90 odd Norwegian kids and then proceeded to sentence them to hell?



Just follow Sauf around for a day...people on here insult Christianity all of the time and they do it over a lot less than someone yelling "I'm Christian" and needlessly punching someone in the face.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 11, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I have never seen a single Muslim on this forum that used logic. Not a single one.



The same logic you use? Like telling me how to spell Guantanamo Bay, then claiming to know about it, when you don't even know what it actually is? You're hilarious 


makeoutparadise said:


> No No Terra I'll just take it down *sigh* people don't have thick skin here



Trust me I do lol



Terra Branford said:


> That's the problem. Anything they think is disrespectful or "bad" makes makes it okay to insult, attack or threaten. :/



Lol, when someone insults your religion, of course you're going to insult them back. And please don't group me with the people who attack or threaten. Even though it's a harmless joke, the line has to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

> Firstly, do you want a medal for checking how to spell it? I hope not



I didn't check. You should spell something correctly before you use the word. It makes you look stupid.



> Secondly, it mainly holds muslims(and I didn't say it was specifically for muslims), and you fail because it's for ''terrorists'' not iraq or afghanistan war detainees as you claim, if you're gonna check how to spell something at least check what it actually is in the process.



Okay.





> The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq.



You are so unintelligent it burns.



> Thirdly yes it is.



Yeah, since just because they take war prisoners means that they're not scared of extremist Muslims killing thousands of people again, right? You are really, really incapable of logic.



> Fourthly, go watch loose change or one of the other hundred videos exposing the truth behind 9/11



HAH, yeah, I figured you'd make a typical Islamist claim that it was a conspiracy. Pathetic. Muslims do anything to make themselves seem peaceful.



> Lastly, there have been more than that over the time it's been open, and 100s or not, being kept there for no good reason with no hope of trial, is a disgrace in and of itself.



So?



> The same logic you use? Like telling me how to spell Guantanamo Bay, then claiming to know about it, when you don't even know what it actually is? You're hilarious



Yeah, right. I just copy pasted to you a Wikipedia article that proves Guantanamo Bay is for war detainees.

No fucking wonder you have horrible rep even though you have 3139 posts. You are incredibly ignorant.


----------



## ashher (Aug 11, 2011)

^ bringing in rep points into arguement, that's first time i've seen it lol. I read the first page of this thread, then slipped to the last, to see how this could possibly merit a 11 page long discussion. And wow, was my suspicion right! This has blown into a full fledged islam and religion bashing thread. I wonder if anyone in these 11 pages has pointed out that the whole news was from the pov of one involved party with no say from either the police or the woman in question. If they've, then why is this one sided thread still going on after that?


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

> ^ bringing in rep points into arguement, that's first time i've seen it lol.



It's not a part of the argument. It just further proves how stupid this guy is.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Aug 11, 2011)

This thread is still going on? =/


----------



## alchemy1234 (Aug 11, 2011)

I feel that if I don't want my picture to be taken, others don't have a right to take it. However, even if this reporter intended on taking a picture of those muslim women, they could have approached him in a different manner and explained to him that they don't want their pictures to be taken. Violence should not be resorted to, unless there is a real need for it (yes in certain situations I feel you may have to get violent in order to protect yourself).


----------



## Watchman (Aug 11, 2011)

That's the thing, Alchemy. I don't think anyone in this thread (aside from maybe Sephiran, but his hatred of Islam is off the charts) is saying "Muslims don't have a right to not be photographed", it's more of a "Muslims don't have a right to get off scot-free after punching someone" PLUS "No other religion/ideology would do this, wth?"


----------



## kazuri (Aug 11, 2011)

> I feel that if I don't want my picture to be taken, others don't have a right to take it



If you don't want your picture to be taken, you have the right to not go into public.

If you don't want people to take your picture, stop reflecting light into THEIR property.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 11, 2011)

kazuri said:


> If you don't want your picture to be taken, you have the right to not go into public.
> 
> If you don't want people to take your picture, stop reflecting light into THEIR property.



If you don't want your picture taken "you must stay inside your house with the curtains closed for the rest of your life".
The law may allow it, but there should be protection against someone going up in your face to snap you and/or make money off of you.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 11, 2011)

alchemy1234 said:


> I feel that if I don't want my picture to be taken, others don't have a right to take it.



Legally, you are correct with some exceptions. But yes, ideally, you would approach him and ask him to crop or cut you out; if he didn't you could sue. Of course the irony would be that you would be on the front page of the paper


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 11, 2011)

it's not just muslims who are like this though I almost got a rock thrown at me for taking a picture in china by a barber
 The woman's actions are understandable  They're not some freak show to be gawked at


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

> Legally, you are correct with some exceptions. But yes, ideally, you would approach him and ask him to crop or cut you out; if he didn't you could sue.



Prove this please. I think this is absurd.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 11, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I didn't check. You should spell something correctly before you use the word. It makes you look stupid.



Only for people who nit pick everything.



> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you said was basically that people tip-toe around Muslims so they don't blow people up again. What i'm saying is that throwing Muslim people into Guantanamo Bay with no evidence and no hope of a trial, isn't exactly tip-toeing. And that's just one example.



> HAH, yeah, I figured you'd make a typical Islamist claim that it was a conspiracy. Pathetic. Muslims do anything to make themselves seem peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> So?



Of course Muslims are the only ones who sa 9/11 was a conspiracy, no Christians, Jews, Seikhs or Hindus, just Muslims. Why don't you actually watch Loose Change instead of dismissing it without actually even seeing, something which you seem to do a lot.



> Yeah, right. I just copy pasted to you a Wikipedia article that proves Guantanamo Bay is for war detainees.



Don't change the fact that terrorists from countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan are also routinely sent there.




> No fucking wonder you have horrible rep even though you have 3139 posts. You are incredibly ignorant.



Nah actually I've been neg bombed several times by Atheists such as yourself, thus diminishing my rep severely. And trust you to talk about rep points, anyone with half a brain cell knows it means jack shit on this forum lol.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> If you don't want your picture taken "you must stay inside your house with the curtains closed for the rest of your life".
> The law may allow it, but there should be protection against someone going up in your face to snap you and/or make money off of you.



I find that more reasonable than expecting someone to stop before taking ANY pictures in public and ask every person who might be in frame if its ok with them.

How about security cameras?  They constantly take pictures of people who go by and many of them look out into public streets and sidewalks.  Are you saying they shouldn't be able to do that without the permission of every random person who walks by?

If you go out in public then you are willingly exposing yourself to the world.



Bishop said:


> Legally, you are correct with some exceptions. But yes, ideally, you would approach him and ask him to crop or cut you out; if he didn't you could sue. Of course the irony would be that you would be on the front page of the paper



That's not true.  If you're in a public place ANYONE can take your picture.  You can photograph ANYTHING that is clearly visible from a public place.

If you had to ask someones permission to take their picture in a public place then the paparazzi wouldn't exist.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 11, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Prove this please. I think this is absurd.



Of Course. You can take pics, but if you plan to put it up in public (Like the guy was) I can sue you.


(Pay attention to the sales part)

If you don't like that link I could find others.



Tsukiyomi said:


> That's not true.  If you're in a public place ANYONE can take your picture.  You can photograph ANYTHING that is clearly visible from a public place.
> 
> If you had to ask someones permission to take their picture in a public place then the paparazzi wouldn't exist.


 I am talking about if you were to give it to a third party and it was to be publicized, like the story. 

I'm relating to the story.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Of Course. You can take pics, but if you plan to put it up in public (Like the guy was) I can sue you.
> 
> 
> (Pay attention to the sales part)
> ...




Reasonable expectation of privacy is the key word and in this case no one had any reasonable expectation of privacy.  They were eating in a very public place.
 



Bishop said:


> I am talking about if you were to give it to a third party and it was to be publicized, like the story.
> 
> I'm relating to the story.



Makes no difference whatsoever.  Again if that mattered the paparazzi wouldn't exist.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I find that more reasonable than expecting someone to stop before taking ANY pictures in public and ask every person who might be in frame if its ok with them.


I don't think there's anything unreasonable about asking someone if they want there picture taken when they are the sole focus of the picture.
That's just polite.



> How about security cameras?  They constantly take pictures of people who go by and many of them look out into public streets and sidewalks.  Are you saying they shouldn't be able to do that without the permission of every random person who walks by?


Like there aren't shit storms already about security cameras.



> If you had to ask someones permission to take their picture in a public place then the paparazzi wouldn't exist.


Is anything of value lost if the paparazzi ceases to exist?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> I don't think there's anything unreasonable about asking someone if they want there picture taken when they are the sole focus of the picture.
> That's just polite.



Polite, but in no way required.



ensoriki said:


> Like there aren't shit storms already about security cameras.



People are raising shit storms about security cameras?  Why don't I see protests outside of every ATM that has a security camera facing the public sidewalk?



ensoriki said:


> Is anything of value lost if the paparazzi ceases to exist?



Nothing at all.  Whats your point?

I'm talking about the way the laws ARE.  Legally you can take a picture of anyone and anything that is in a public place.  That's why the paparazzi are able to exist.


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

> What you said was basically that people tip-toe around Muslims so they don't blow people up again. What i'm saying is that throwing Muslim people into Guantanamo Bay with no evidence and no hope of a trial, isn't exactly tip-toeing. And that's just one example.



This doesn't make any sense.



> Of course Muslims are the only ones who sa 9/11 was a conspiracy, no Christians, Jews, Seikhs or Hindus, just Muslims. Why don't you actually watch Loose Change instead of dismissing it without actually even seeing, something which you seem to do a lot.



I didn't say Muslims were the only one. I said it's typical for Muslims to think so.

I did see Loose Change. It's bullshit.



> Don't change the fact that terrorists from countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan are also routinely sent there.



Routinely? Prove this please.



> Nah actually I've been neg bombed several times by Atheists such as yourself, thus diminishing my rep severely. And trust you to talk about rep points, anyone with half a brain cell knows it means jack shit on this forum lol.



I don't see other Muslims getting neg bombed.. you're a special case.


----------



## ensoriki (Aug 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Polite, but in no way required.


Requirement is not the point. While attacking the man was not in the woman's best interests, on a general note it is not unreasonable to want people who want a picture of you to ask you.





> People are raising shit storms about security cameras?  Why don't I see protests outside of every ATM that has a security camera facing the public sidewalk?


You can do some quick research on the video surveillance & privacy debates on google.



> Nothing at all.  Whats your point?
> 
> I'm talking about the way the laws ARE.  Legally you can take a picture of anyone and anything that is in a public place.  That's why the paparazzi are able to exist.


It isn't a point only a comment.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 11, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> This doesn't make any sense.



If you say so.



> I didn't say Muslims were the only one. I said it's typical for Muslims to think so.



Nah it's just kinda obvious. Other people just refuse to believe that the government is capable of something like that.



> I did see Loose Change. It's bullshit.



EDIT: You _think_ it's bullshit



> Routinely? Prove this please.



There's a whole list of people on wikipedia.





> I don't see other Muslims getting neg bombed.. you're a special case.



That's because no-one bothers to argue with trash like you who's aim isn't to argue but just bash Islam whenever you get the chance.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Requirement is not the point. While attacking the man was not in the woman's best interests, on a general note it is not unreasonable to want people who want a picture of you to ask you.



To want them to ask no, to ATTACK them is most definitely unreasonable which is what happened here.  You lose the "oh its understandable" argument when you're the one who starts using physical force.



ensoriki said:


> You can do some quick research on the video surveillance & privacy debates on google.



By debate do you mean bloggers ranting back and forth? Because as I said there are lots of security cameras in malls, atms, parking lots, convenience stores etc... and I don't see anyone protesting.



ensoriki said:


> It isn't a point only a comment.



Ok, you made your comment but legally this man had every right to do what he was doing and she had no right to assault him.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 11, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> EDIT: You _think_ it's bullshit


He thinks it bullshit, because it is bullshit.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 11, 2011)

Ok, Was gone a little bit but I am back.

Tsukiyomi: I'm not going to argue with you, I provided my source, which is credible. If you take a picture of me in public, you can do that. However, if you are going to put it on a publicized channel, you should see me or I could sue you.

In THIS case, the man was right; all he did was take some snaps, and then he was subjected to violence, in front of his son even. The lady deserves to pay for her actions equally with the cops.

However, I was talking to one person about her preferences, I talked about the law, the end. 

With that said, I am not a photographer or a lawyer; I don't know all the ins and outs. If you still have some questions for me, go ahead and I can try my best to answer what I know, otherwise, let's get back on topic.

*Thread* I think this is still in motion, maybe the guy will put a suit against the officers.


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's illegal at all to take a photo of someone in public. *This is something you should expect when you go outside.*


----------



## Bishop (Aug 11, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's illegal at all to take a photo of someone in public. *This is something you should expect when you go outside.*



It is NOT illegal, simple misinterpretation. It is illegal is you chose y=to use the picture for commercial use.

Good: I take a pic of you and hang it on the wall.

Bad: I take a pic of a car that you are next to, and make a commercial out of it without consulting you about it. Now you're on tv without even knowing it; according to the law, you can sue me.


----------



## Seph (Aug 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> It is NOT illegal, simple misinterpretation. It is illegal is you chose y=to use the picture for commercial use.
> 
> Good: I take a pic of you and hang it on the wall.
> 
> Bad: I take a pic of a car that you are next to, and make a commercial out of it without consulting you about it. Now you're on tv without even knowing it; according to the law, you can sue me.



I might be wrong, but I don't see anything indicating that this guy was going to use the picture for commercial use? But in that case, I agree.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> It is NOT illegal, simple misinterpretation. It is illegal is you chose y=to use the picture for commercial use.
> 
> Good: I take a pic of you and hang it on the wall.
> 
> Bad: I take a pic of a car that you are next to, and make a commercial out of it without consulting you about it. Now you're on tv without even knowing it; according to the law, you can sue me.



It depends on the situation.  The reason you can't take a picture of someone next to a product and use it as an ad for that product is you're implying that persons endorsement.

If its just a location then those same standards don't apply since you're only implying that person went to that location.  Its why baseball stadiums don't need to get permission from every person they video tape in the stands to use that footage in videos.

Regardless there is no indication these photos were going to be used in advertising.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> It depends on the situation.  The reason you can't take a picture of someone next to a product and use it as an ad for that product is you're implying that persons endorsement.
> 
> If its just a location then those same standards don't apply since you're only implying that person went to that location.  Its why baseball stadiums don't need to get permission from every person they video tape in the stands to use that footage in videos.
> 
> Regardless there is no indication these photos were going to be used in advertising.



Agreed. I was stating that you can not use for commercial use; just some misinterpretations. As you pointed out, it's obvious we can take pictures or people in public for private use, otherwise stalkers and P.I.'s would be out of business.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 11, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Lol, when someone insults your religion, of course you're going to insult them back. And please don't group me with the people who attack or threaten. Even though it's a harmless joke, *the line has to be drawn somewhere.*


Oh wow. 

I wasn't grouping you with the people who threaten or attack (learn to read my posts), I was saying you're one of those thin skinned people who insult or get angry over the slightest things about their religion.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 11, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Oh wow.
> 
> I wasn't grouping you with the people who threaten or attack (learn to read my posts), I was saying you're one of those thin skinned people who insult or get angry over the slightest things about their religion.



It seems you didn't get what I said. Sure it's a harmless joke, but whos to say when a joke ceases to be harmless and starts seriously offending people, so it's best to leave jokes aside in sensitive cases.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 11, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> It seems you didn't get what I said. Sure it's a harmless joke, but whos to say when a joke ceases to be harmless and starts seriously offending people, so it's best to leave jokes aside in sensitive cases.


I perfectly understood your post; I was, at first, directing you assuming that I grouped you with the people who threaten others.

Who is to say? Why people who have thick skin and aren't easily hurt by ridiculous things and know that its just a joke. People just need to get over it. 

When can a joke _not_ be harmless?


----------



## JellyButter (Aug 11, 2011)

I'd take that advantage


----------



## Dolohov27 (Aug 11, 2011)

He should have Chris Brown that bitch.


----------



## -Dargor- (Aug 12, 2011)

Like the guy said, it's legal to take pictures of a passerby in canada, if retarded muslims don't like the rules, feel free to switch countries anytime 

Stupid cops not doing their job properly.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 12, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I perfectly understood your post; I was, at first, directing you assuming that I grouped you with the people who threaten others.
> 
> Who is to say? Why people who have thick skin and aren't easily hurt by ridiculous things and know that its just a joke. People just need to get over it.
> 
> When can a joke _not_ be harmless?



When a joke actually offends someone, so that's why I just say leave jokes aside when it comes to sensitive issues 

But trust me i'm the last person to get offended over jokes lol, maybe it's just the fact that it's the internet and people get more defensive


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 13, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> It seems you didn't get what I said. Sure it's a harmless joke, but whos to say when a joke ceases to be harmless and starts seriously offending people, so it's best to leave jokes aside in sensitive cases.


You don't have the right to not be offended good sir.


----------



## Terra Branford (Aug 13, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> When a joke actually offends someone, so that's why I just say leave jokes aside when it comes to sensitive issues
> 
> But trust me i'm the last person to get offended over jokes lol, maybe it's just the fact that it's the internet and people get more defensive



Might as well stop all jokes then, right? 

You seemed pretty offended over it to me  but I guess I mistook your posts. *shrugs*


----------



## Ultimania (Aug 13, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> It seems you didn't get what I said. Sure it's a harmless joke, but whos to say when a joke ceases to be harmless and starts seriously offending people, so it's best to leave jokes aside in sensitive cases.



It sounds like you are offended about someone offending you. 

Anyway, what the bitch did was ridiculous. The cops should have put her in jail, but are fearful of the Muslims going apeshit if they did. I bet if she was a believer of another religion, the cops would have arrested her.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2011)

Ultimania said:


> It sounds like you are offended about someone offending you.
> 
> Anyway, what the bitch did was ridiculous. *The cops should have put her in jail*, but are fearful of the Muslims going apeshit if they did. I bet if she was a believer of another religion, the cops would have arrested her.



I dunno I think that's too lenient I think she should also get life and in-case she got out we should put her in the sex offenders registry.


----------



## No.1Moose (Aug 13, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Might as well stop all jokes then, right?
> 
> You seemed pretty offended over it to me  but I guess I mistook your posts. *shrugs*



Well it's subjective lol, you're talking to a joker right here, so of course jokes are allowed.

Nah it's just in NF Cafe people who ''joke'' about Islam are usually trying to bash Islam, so it was a reflex. After speaking to makeoutparadise it seems it wasn't the case with him and I jumped the gun, so I apologised


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Aug 14, 2011)

*not reading posts, seeing how internetz iz-__-? 

I am a Muslim, but isn't this a bit of an overreaction? 

in this day and age, photography is so widespread, i don't see how its a violating of anything.. and its a public place to boot.. 

yeah, total overreaction.. :/


----------

