banning the burqa

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 4:39 PM GMT
    HajdeBro said
    If the ideology behind the Niqab get's its way, you can kiss your freedoms good bye. Everyone can.


    This reads like something I'd watch spoken from Bill O'Reilly.

    Ironic how there exist those who would speak against us claiming giving gays an inch on marriage will result in degrading family values, higher divorce rates, and worse off children. And we in turn do the same to others. Yes I'm sure allowing women to wear an item of clothing will result in oppression and torture of gays here in the United States, France, Germany, or other European countries...


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 5:11 PM GMT
    ATC84 said
    HajdeBro said
    If the ideology behind the Niqab get's its way, you can kiss your freedoms good bye. Everyone can.


    This reads like something I'd watch spoken from Bill O'Reilly.

    Ironic how there exist those who would speak against us claiming giving gays an inch on marriage will result in degrading family values, higher divorce rates, and worse off children. And we in turn do the same to others. Yes I'm sure allowing women to wear an item of clothing will result in oppression and torture of gays here in the United States, France, Germany, or other European countries...





    Yeah, compare me to Bill O'Reilly, that automatically nullifies any claim, coz you know, O'Reilly said it.

    I'll let you know something.

    Bosnia is a multi-religious state, though Islam has always been one of the dominating religions there, ever since the Ottoman Empire brought it to Bosnia.
    Now, prior to the 1990's, Muslims in Bosnia were known as being rather liberal, tolerant, open, and were almost celebrated as being a successful example of a proper mix between 'Europe' and 'Islam'.
    In the 1990's however, a lot of Mujahideen (Jihadists) came to Bosnia to support the Muslims in Bosnia during the war.
    When they left, a lot remained, and they set up new mosques, directed funding to new educational systems and programs, all of it aimed to promote the ideology behind the niqab. Call it Islamism or whatever.

    If you go to Bosnia today, niqabs are becoming more common, long beards on men are becoming common, mosques with "radical" speakers are becoming more common, advocating the prohibition of alcohol has become more common, and so on. Prior to the 1990's, you would never see a niqab in Bosnia. The women there simply didn't wear it; it was seen as foreign to them. These days, some women are paid to wear it, the deal being something like 'if you wear it, we will pay for school'.
    (The biggest funders of this stuff is of coarse, Saudi Arabia. They also built Bosnia's largest mosque which is off-limits to government authorities, and in case you didn't know, Saudi Arabia's version of Islam is probably the worst in the world, something most Muslims even despise as being a primitive throwback.)

    This is because the every-day Islam type thing which was so entrenched in Bosnia has been challenged and disturbed by a radical new religious ideology.

    And I've said before, in today's times, whenever the niqab shows up, you can be guaranteed that the less-than-friendly version of Islam is not far behind.


    If you are going to ignore that because it was on Fox News, then fine, be closed minded.

    But you're wrong.

    And I'm not even an American so keep your Americanisms to yourself.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 5:19 PM GMT
    You seem to be missing the point.

    I'm not talking about anything done to someone in the name of Allah at some point in time somewhere in the world.

    I'm talking about the dishonest argument style where you claim seemingly harmless action X will lead to horrible outcome Y. For example we may see claims like allowing gays to adopt leading to more children with development problems or addicted to substances like drugs & alcohol.

    And here you are using the same basic premise against an item of clothing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 5:35 PM GMT
    ATC84:

    I've already explained all of this in my previous posts.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    From what I understand you explained that the wearing of a headpiece is a sign of support for a dominating religion that wants to rule and oppress the entire world.

    If I misunderstood by all means please correct me.

    If I understood your meaning then my earlier statement still stands. Further on that note simply banning an article of clothing isn't going to change anything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 5:49 PM GMT
    ATC84 saidFrom what I understand you explained that the wearing of a headpiece is a sign of support for a dominating religion that wants to rule and oppress the entire world.

    If I misunderstood by all means please correct me.

    If I understood your meaning then my earlier statement still stands. Further on that note simply banning an article of clothing isn't going to change anything.



    Your first paragraph is correct. If you disagree, I'd be really curious to see why.

    Banning the niqab won't solve -that- problem (another topic entirely), but it will free women who are forced to wear it, it will remove an ugly garment that has hideous reasoning behind it (ones that are anti-thetical to the freedoms we in the west enjoy), and it will make the face seen in public. Covering the face in public, is not a 'western' thing in any way, and it makes contact with people difficult.

    It will get rid of -those- problems.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:07 PM GMT
    HajdeBro said
    Your first paragraph is correct. If you disagree, I'd be really curious to see why.

    Banning the niqab won't solve -that- problem (another topic entirely), but it will free women who are forced to wear it, it will remove an ugly garment that has hideous reasoning behind it (ones that are anti-thetical to the freedoms we in the west enjoy), and it will make the face seen in public. Covering the face in public, is not a 'western' thing in any way, and it makes contact with people difficult.

    It will get rid of -those- problems.




    You've admitted a ban wouldn't solve any immediate problems you've mentioned so it becomes more of a retaliatory move against wrongs the person wearing the headpiece didn't even commit.

    I'm also fairly certain many people of the Islamic faith would take offense to you calling ugly head scarves a problem that needs to be solved.

    Why not go to the logical extreme. Ban the practice of Islam. Or ban religions in general.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:17 PM GMT
    ATC84:


    1. I DON'T CARE about 'offending' people. The whole 'lets not offend Muslims' thing has gotten out of hand.

    My, or any one else's right to freedom of speech is more important than not hurting the feelings of Muslims. (or anyone else for that matter, but we all know its Muslims that cannot actually be insulted, we don't care about insult Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Atheists).


    2. I specifically explained it is the NIQAB, NOT the HIJAB that should be banned.



    The rest of your comment, seriously dude, I just fucking explained the issue with the niqab.

    Do I need to explain it again?


    What part of:

    -It represents an unfriendly version of Islam hostile to everything but itself,
    -It hides the face of people in public making proper communication with them difficult,
    -It promotes the segregation of men and women,
    -It is FORCED onto some women,

    don't you understand?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:31 PM GMT
    Still stuck on the point where banning an item of clothing is going to prevent rights from being taken away somehow. No point in further discussion then.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:33 PM GMT
    You children really need to get a room.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:34 PM GMT
    ATC84 saidStill stuck on the point where banning an item of clothing is going to prevent rights from being taken away somehow. No point in further discussion then.




    Try holding hands with another male in a Muslim-dominated neighborhood. Ones that insist their women wear a niqab.


    Maybe then you'll get un-stuck. Have fun.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:35 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidYou children really need to get a room.


    Epic fight over who has to bottom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 6:35 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidYou children really need to get a room.


    Lol, eh I'd really rather not.