«12. . .27,97027,97127,97227,973
Well, it is a fact that mosques have been attacked. There is a risk of futire attacks, especially in a country where Islamophobia runs rampant. And it's also a fact that protection can prevent future attacks
Therefore, saying they don't need protection is tantamount to saying future attacks might as well happen.
(Also, you already know that. I am adding this explanation for the benefit of anyone not adept in spotting the tactics.)
It's criticising the modern Islamic religion of being outdated and incompatible.
And yes, Christianity is also incompatible. I'm a secularist.
No, it really isn't. You're just reaching for any reason to rage and fume over this.
How tf is it a reach to say taking down a shield to something opens it up to an attack?
Bigots are always so frustratingly bad faith.
Please leave, nobody wants you here.
I hope you are aware that if mosques are not protected innocent people in places like Gaza could die due to attacks
I still love the misplaced confidence and smugness on the person who still supports the Tories when even the Tories don’t support them anymore.
Because you didn't just say that, did you? You said that I had spoken out in favour of attacks happening.
That's kind of the point I was making in the first place....
If you condone taking down the shield you’re in favour of the attack.
Again, stop being bad faith. It doesn’t matter what you do or don’t say what you imply is crystal clear.
honestly this whole hate crime against muslims and Islam makes no sense. We get so much stuff from the middle east and the surrounding areas. Honestly imo humanity probably wouldn’t have gotten this far with out them.
No, that's what you're saying, not what I'm saying. It's not implied at all.
Ok, well that was never in question.
If you knock the shield out of someone’s hand before they get shot, you don’t have to say “I want them to get shot” to be in favour of them being shot.
If you take away the protection of a mosque before it gets attacked, you don’t have to say “I want it to be attacked” to be in favour of it being attacked.
It’s not complicated.
And even if not, people don't deserve to get hatecrimed even if they did not benefit the societal majority in any way
But there's not a certainty that a Mosque will be attacked. Synagogues are far more at risk since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
For some reason, I think you'd disagree if some proposed arming US teachers to defend against shooters, and if I were anything like you, I'd start hysterically shrieking about how you're in favour of school shootings. But that's an argument for another time.
«12. . .27,97027,97127,97227,973
Advertisement
