March organizer might have had terrorist ties

[ruby59]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/24/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-accused-of-terrorist-ties/21661978/

 

[VRBeauty]

I have a cousin who is a lifelong activist for peace and fighting. Unfortunately, that blood tie doesn't translate to my being a lifelong peace activist. I have, however, participated in meetings and forums with people who's view I disagree with. Fortunately, being in those places, probably even being photographed with those people, didn't "contaminate" me with those views either.

 

[ruby59]

I have a cousin who is a lifelong activist for peace and fighting. Unfortunately, that blood tie doesn't translate to my being a lifelong peace activist. I have, however, participated in meetings and forums with people who's view I disagree with... being in those places, probably even being photographed with those people, didn't "contaminate" me with those views either.

Agreed.

But when a tragedy occurs police officers often speak to everyone in the family to see if others were involved as well.

 

[lovedogs]

As far as I can tell from searching, this has not been reported anywhere other than untrustworthy sites. Not surprisingly, InfoWars (where everything is a conspiracy theory/lie) got in on this days ago http://www.infowars.com/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/

Other info

The posts against Sarsour, which included assaults on her character, were featured in many right-wing websites, including popular outlets like the Daily Caller.

The seemingly orchestrated effort centred on falsehoods, Islamophobic and misogynistic slurs.

From what I've seen, this is just propaganda and attempts to tear her down for organizing and helping with the march (and for being Muslim....because many of those websites have Islamophobic writers).

 

[ruby59]

As far as I can tell from searching, this has not been reported anywhere other than untrustworthy sites. Not surprisingly, InfoWars (where everything is a conspiracy theory/lie) got in on this days ago http://www.infowars.com/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/

Other info

The posts against Sarsour, which included assaults on her character, were featured in many right-wing websites, including popular outlets like the Daily Caller.

The seemingly orchestrated effort centred on falsehoods, Islamophobic and misogynistic slurs.

From what I've seen, this is just propaganda and attempts to tear her down for organizing and helping with the march (and for being Muslim....because many of those websites have Islamophobic writers).

I have a question.



You say it is only in right wing outlets, so it has to be false.

What about far leaning left outlets.

Do they intentionally omit such articles that may hurt their cause?

So is the information true or false , just based on which news organizations carry the story?

 

[sstephensid]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/24/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-accused-of-terrorist-ties/21661978/

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/25/fake-news-purveyors-run-bigoted-attacks-women-s-march-organizer-and-google-helps-them-profit/215109

Articles jumping to conclusion based on her skin color and religion are not cool. How would you feel if people falsified information claiming you were a terrorist or had terorist affiliation because of your skin or religion? This is racism, showing religious hatred, and xenophobia.

 

[Tekate]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/24/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour-accused-of-terrorist-ties/21661978/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/

This is very much innuendo, it's as though the Daily Caller is calling her guilty by association, there is NO evidence she is involved in terrorism, shame on the Daily Caller for casting doubt on this woman without any concrete information.. This is why I don't like Trump, with Trump if I'm walking down the street and speaking hello to a muslim friend, I'm a terrorist (extreme but on point). This stuff get's repeated and smear campaigns have already started against this woman. Shame on the right.

read this to get the left side:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-womens-march-attacked-online_us_58865134e4b0e3a7356adbb2

 

[ruby59]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/


Trying to get through this is difficult when you have certain publications telling you one thing and others something else.

But pictures do not lie, so this makes me wonder..

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is very much innuendo, it's as though the Daily Caller is calling her guilty by association, there is NO evidence she is involved in terrorism, shame on the Daily Caller for casting doubt on this woman without any concrete information.. This is why I don't like Trump, with Trump if I'm walking down the street and speaking hello to a muslim friend, I'm a terrorist (extreme but on point). This stuff get's repeated and smear campaigns have already started against this woman. Shame on the right.

I'm not suggesting I believe the stories, but re: the first bolded part, I'm curious how you define or what you consider 'evidence'.

Regarding the second bolded part, this is not a "right" or "left" issue; it's an integrity & ethics issue, as so-called "journalists" and "news" media on BOTH sides are quite guilty of promoting rumor, innuendo and rhetoric as "fact".

 

[ruby59]

This is very much innuendo, it's as though the Daily Caller is calling her guilty by association, there is NO evidence she is involved in terrorism, shame on the Daily Caller for casting doubt on this woman without any concrete information.. This is why I don't like Trump, with Trump if I'm walking down the street and speaking hello to a muslim friend, I'm a terrorist (extreme but on point). This stuff get's repeated and smear campaigns have already started against this woman. Shame on the right.

I'm not suggesting I believe the stories, but re: the first bolded part, I'm curious how you define or what you consider 'evidence'.

Regarding the second bolded part, this is not a "right" or "left" issue; it's an integrity & ethics issue, as so-called "journalists" and "news" media on BOTH sides are quite guilty of promoting rumor, innuendo and rhetoric as "fact".

It is a mine field out there. I went through a few pages.

One woman and two diametrically opposed views.

You do not know who to believe anymore.

 

[athenaworth]

I fear this administration will make McCarthyism look like a walk in the park. I've intentionally not signed any petitions for fear of being black balled some how some way.

But I will say that I recently befriended a very wonderful woman on IG who happened to be Muslim. We were speaking about Trump and she entrusted me with her real name and told me to google her. When I did I saw that she was the target of one of these news sites that claimed she was a terrorist and she receives death threats daily. All because some fake new site targeted her. That terrifies me. People don't research what they're reading or find alternative sources. They just believe what they read as gospel. And yes it applies to the far left as much as it does the far right. My mom in a whack job liberal and posts EVERYTHING she finds on her FB page. When I have spare time I fact check half of her articles for her because she's truly not helping herself by only posting far left websites. It really does have to be a perseverance thing for everyone or shit is going to get really really scary/messy.

 

[katharath]

Here's a handy chart for who to believe:

 

[ruby59]

I fear this administration will make McCarthyism look like a walk in the park. I've intentionally not signed any petitions for fear of being black balled some how some way.

But I will say that I recently befriended a very wonderful woman on IG who happened to be Muslim. We were speaking about Trump and she entrusted me with her real name and told me to google her. When I did I saw that she was the target of one of these news sites that claimed she was a terrorist and she receives death threats daily. All because some fake new site targeted her. That terrifies me. People don't research what they're reading or find alternative sources. They just believe what they read as gospel. And yes it applies to the far left as much as it does the far right. My mom in a whack job liberal and posts EVERYTHING she finds on her FB page. When I have spare time I fact check half of her articles for her because she's truly not helping herself by only posting far left websites. It really does have to be a perseverance thing for everyone or shit is going to get really really scary/messy.

Athena, I googled this woman. Where do you even start to know who is telling the truth.

 

[AnnaH]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

 

[kenny]

I'm so glad this thread was started.

Clearly all women who marched are terrorists.
It's obvious.
It's just common sense. Period!

 

[lovedogs]

Here's a handy chart for who to believe:

I love that chart! First saw on FB, and although no chart can be 100% detailed about everything, this one comes pretty darn close to having most of the sources that are read regularly.

 

[chrono]

I'm not sure what this thread is all about since all it has is a link and no questions were asked and no opinion was offered.
So those who participated in the March now are considered to have terrorist ties?

 

[ruby59]

I'm so glad this thread was started.

Clearly all women who marched are terrorists.
It's obvious.
It's just common sense. Period!

What about the men?

 

[katharath]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

It's meant as a starting off point, it's not called "the all encompassing, infallible chart". We can't handhold every internet user. People need to be responsible for themselves - if they are truly having such a hard time, perhaps they should learn how to fact check, discern truth from lies, and do a bit of simple research. That's what critical thinkers do.

 

[lovedogs]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

It's meant as a starting off point, it's not called "the all encompassing, infallible chart". We can't handhold every internet user. People need to be responsible for themselves - if they are truly having such a hard time, perhaps they should learn how to fact check, discern truth from lies, and do a bit of simple research. That's what critical thinkers do.

Katharath: I love you. That is all.

 

[katharath]

Here's a handy chart for who to believe:

I love that chart! First saw on FB, and although no chart can be 100% detailed about everything, this one comes pretty darn close to having most of the sources that are read regularly.

Thank, Lovedogs. I think it can be a helpful tool. Of course, you will have people who will look at it and say, "but ALL of the media is wrong, Donald says so!"

 

[katharath]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

It's meant as a starting off point, it's not called "the all encompassing, infallible chart". We can't handhold every internet user. People need to be responsible for themselves - if they are truly having such a hard time, perhaps they should learn how to fact check, discern truth from lies, and do a bit of simple research. That's what critical thinkers do.

Katharath: I love you. That is all.

Lol, you too, my friend!

 

[ruby59]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

It's meant as a starting off point, it's not called "the all encompassing, infallible chart". We can't handhold every internet user. People need to be responsible for themselves - if they are truly having such a hard time, perhaps they should learn how to fact check, discern truth from lies, and do a bit of simple research. That's what critical thinkers do.

Katharath: I love you. That is all.

What I did was try to go back into her history, well before the event, to try and get some info on her.

But until I cam here I never realized how much some outlets can twist the truth on both sides.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I'm not sure what this thread is all about since all it has is a link and no questions were asked and no opinion was offered.
So those who participated in the March now are considered to have terrorist ties?

I asked a question ... but I may very well be on iggy.

To your second statement, I don't believe that.

 

[SMC]

There is always something on the internet to anchor any bias, confirm any suspicion, substantiate any claim, and affirm any belief. The fact that you are posting this article in order to undermine an activist's credibility suggests to me that you are biased against her to begin with. If you have posted any articles extolling her virtues, then I'm sorry that I missed those posts. That's all I'm going to say.

 

[AnnaH]

K, in my opinion, your chart is too simplistic.
Contributors to various publications differ, some reliable, some not.
That goes for those in the center of the chart, too.

It's meant as a starting off point, it's not called "the all encompassing, infallible chart". We can't handhold every internet user. People need to be responsible for themselves - if they are truly having such a hard time, perhaps they should learn how to fact check, discern truth from lies, and do a bit of simple research. That's what critical thinkers do.[/quote

Questioning your chart equals a lack of critical thinking?

 

[bunnycat]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/


Trying to get through this is difficult when you have certain publications telling you one thing and others something else.

But pictures do not lie, so this makes me wonder..

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see how her attending a Muslim event is evidence of terrorism??? It's a picture, even if someone questionable is in it. She is on one end and he on another with a group of people....????

I myself try to research and find facts from various sources (neutral) and when I can't corroborate things I see with neutral sources, or something like this accusation comes directly after some thing that a political party disapproves of, I am immediately skeptical.

 

[ericad]

I'm so glad this thread was started.

Clearly all women who marched are terrorists.
It's obvious.
It's just common sense. Period!

Terrorists and horrible parents AND vagina-heads.

 

[kenny]

LOL

Wouldn't it be funny if our genitals were on top of our heads?

Then beds would be twice as long.

 

[siamese3]

Here's a handy chart for who to believe:

Hey katharath.. do you have an original source for this? I would like a better copy to share. Thanks in advance!