Gunmen dressed in Burkhas kill students in Pakisstan

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/taliban-gunmen-deadly-attack-peshawar-college-pakistan

This is yet another exmple of why the safety of the MANY should get priority over the rights of the FEW ie to wear clothing in public places that poses a very real security risk, especially in such dangerous times. It is a disaster waiting to happen in the West.

It annoys the hell out of me that some people think they have the right to expose others to this risk and/or defend their ‘rights’ to do so. Time this particular risk was reduced. What a tragic waste of life.

[smudgie]

Absolutely awful.
R.I.P.
So much hate in this world.

[DemolitionRed]

My thoughts to all those in Pakistan affected by this massacre.

[The Slim Reaper]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/taliban-gunmen-deadly-attack-peshawar-college-pakistan

This is yet another exmple of why the safety of the MANY should get priority over the rights of the FEW ie to wear clothing in public places that poses a very real security risk, especially in such dangerous times. It is a disaster waiting to happen in the West.

It annoys the hell out of me that some people think they have the right to expose others to this risk and/or defend their ‘rights’ to do so. Time this particular risk was reduced. What a tragic waste of life.

What's the solution in your opinion?

[Nicky91]

freakin disgusting :yuk:

rip :(

[Brillopad]

What's the solution in your opinion?

Isn’t it obvious - ban the wearing of any item of clothing that covers the face and therefore identity, including religious dress, in all public places in Britain. Public safety should get priority over other issues.

[DemolitionRed]

Its tragic what happened in Pakistan but if this thread is just another old chestnut about how Muslim women dress in the UK, can I just ask, how much more can we talk about this?

[The Slim Reaper]

Isn’t it obvious - ban the wearing of any item of clothing that covers the face and therefore identity, including religious dress, in all public places in Britain. Public safety should get priority over other issues.

Maybe it's obvious to you, but not so much to me. I disagree with your solution; how many people have been killed by people wearing the specific kind of clothing that covers the face?

When we see terrorists using vehicles to mow down innocents, is our first reaction that the obvious solution is to ban cars? If people want to cause damage to society, they don't need a Burka to do it.

[Brillopad]

Maybe it's obvious to you, but not so much to me. I disagree with your solution; how many people have been killed by people wearing the specific kind of clothing that covers the face?

When we see terrorists using vehicles to mow down innocents, is our first reaction that the obvious solution is to ban cars? If people want to cause damage to society, they don't need a Burka to do it.

We will see - I hope you are right.

[Brillopad]

Its tragic what happened in Pakistan but if this thread is just another old chestnut about how Muslim women dress in the UK, can I just ask, how much more can we talk about this?

As much as is needed I guess. Preferable to brushing it under the carpet in my opinion just to appease others.

[smudgie]

Its tragic what happened in Pakistan but if this thread is just another old chestnut about how Muslim women dress in the UK, can I just ask, how much more can we talk about this?

Surely the thread is more to do with the problem/worry that men can dress as women in a burkha.:shrug:

[jaxie]

I think we should be just as worried by the idea that women are indoctrinated to a point to believe that their appearance needs to be hidden or they are in some way loose and immoral, but that's probably another thread.

So sorry for anyone slaughtered by monsters in the name of fantasy. Such a senseless waste of innocent life. If the intent is there they will find some other way to hide.

[Brillopad]

Surely the thread is more to do with the problem/worry that men can dress as women in a burkha.:shrug:

Exactly. It isn’t rocket science. If we get used to seeing groups of women in Burkhas and pay them no mind or feel intimidated by PC into not questiong them being in certain areas, as we know does happen, it would make it much easier for terrorists to get access to areas that a group of young Muslim men hiding weapons (ie wearing bulky clothing/rucksacks) would find more difficult.

[The Slim Reaper]

Exactly. It isn’t rocket science. If we get used to seeing groups of women in Burkhas and pay them no mind or feel intimidated by PC into not questiong them being in certain areas, as we know does happen, it would make it much easier for terrorists to get access to areas that a group of young Muslim men hiding weapons (ie wearing bulky clothing/rucksacks) would find more difficult.

So you see a bunch of people in Burkas, and you're worried about feeling intimidated by the PC brigade stopping you from monitoring their activities?

Let's just pretend for one second (I know my theory is a massive reach, but go with it) that a bunch of women are walking around the city center minding their own business, sharing gossip about their husbands and mother-in-laws, taking their kids out for the day etc, but then they are being followed and monitored by random dudes on the street; would you think that would be more intimidating then the PC brigade stomping all over your imagined rights to be able to monitor other citizens?

What is more likely, a bunch of women on a day out? Or a group of men hiding guns? We live with all kinds of risks throughout our day, we run across the road when cars are coming, we go out in storms, and we get in flying metal boxes, so until these crazy gangs of Burka-killers become a real on-going problem, then I'm happy keeping my underwear dry about the whole issue.

[Withano]

So you see a bunch of people in Burkas, and you're worried about feeling intimidated by the PC brigade stopping you from monitoring their activities?

Let's just pretend for one second (I know my theory is a massive reach, but go with it) that a bunch of women are walking around the city center minding their own business, sharing gossip about their husbands and mother-in-laws, taking their kids out for the day etc, but then they are being followed and monitored by random dudes on the street; would you think that would be more intimidating then the PC brigade stomping all over your imagined rights to be able to monitor other citizens?

What is more likely, a bunch of women on a day out? Or a group of men hiding guns? We live with all kinds of risks throughout our day, we run across the road when cars are coming, we go out in storms, and we get in flying metal boxes, so until these crazy gangs of Burka-killers become a real on-going problem, then I'm happy keeping my underwear dry about the whole issue.

Who is this guy? Can we keep him.

[Withano]

Banning the burqa isnt going to stop terrorism. We never considered banning jeans when Mair murdered Cox, we never considered banning tshirts when Abedi bombed Manchester Arena, so I'd argue that your problem is more to do with Islam in general than the clothing of terrorists. And thats just a little bit sad.

[bots]

equally, they could dress up as police officers, army etc etc etc .... criminals have been dressing up in disguise for generations, our reaction has never been to ban what they are mimicking

[Kizzy]

Exactly. It isn’t rocket science. If we get used to seeing groups of women in Burkhas and pay them no mind or feel intimidated by PC into not questiong them being in certain areas, as we know does happen, it would make it much easier for terrorists to get access to areas that a group of young Muslim men hiding weapons (ie wearing bulky clothing/rucksacks) would find more difficult.

You never see students with rucksacks?

[Brillopad]

So you see a bunch of people in Burkas, and you're worried about feeling intimidated by the PC brigade stopping you from monitoring their activities?

Let's just pretend for one second (I know my theory is a massive reach, but go with it) that a bunch of women are walking around the city center minding their own business, sharing gossip about their husbands and mother-in-laws, taking their kids out for the day etc, but then they are being followed and monitored by random dudes on the street; would you think that would be more intimidating then the PC brigade stomping all over your imagined rights to be able to monitor other citizens?

What is more likely, a bunch of women on a day out? Or a group of men hiding guns? We live with all kinds of risks throughout our day, we run across the road when cars are coming, we go out in storms, and we get in flying metal boxes, so until these crazy gangs of Burka-killers become a real on-going problem, then I'm happy keeping my underwear dry about the whole issue.

Talk about twisting my words. When did I mention following women wearing Burkhas. But I do know that security guards have spoken of not questioning women in bu4khas in banks and other such places due to feeling uncomfortable about doing so. It does show that it could pose a problem in other situations too as people will play on that. I am clearly talking about the police, security guards and other relevant personnel monitoring potential security risks not the general public acting like Miss Marple and following people around.

Of course we run all sorts of risks in an average day but until recently Muslim terrorism was a lot less likely. Surely the above article shows how easy it could be in the West especially with growing PC and the religious, modesty and PC implications of questioning women wearing Burkhas.

If you think Muslim terrorists won’t use that to their advantage you would be very naive and you don’t sound naive to me. Besides they already have. They have proved they will use whatever simple method they can - they are not particular. Anything that has the desired effect as there are plenty of vulnerable public places.

[Tom4784]

equally, they could dress up as police officers, army etc etc etc .... criminals have been dressing up in disguise for generations, our reaction has never been to ban what they are mimicking

True.

As long as face covering clothing isn't allowed in areas that could be a safety risk (which is often the case anyway), there's no reason to ban them completely.

Reactionary law changes are never a good idea.

[The Slim Reaper]

Exactly. It isn’t rocket science. If we get used to seeing groups of women in Burkhas and pay them no mind or feel intimidated by PC into not questiong them being in certain areas, as we know does happen, it would make it much easier for terrorists to get access to areas that a group of young Muslim men hiding weapons (ie wearing bulky clothing/rucksacks) would find more difficult.

Talk about twisting my words. When did I mention following women wearing Burkhas. But I do know that security guards have spoken of not questioning women in bu4khas in banks and other such places due to feeling uncomfortable about doing so. It does show that it could pose a problem in other situations too as people will play on that.

Of course we run all sorts of risks in an average day but until recently Muslim terrorism was a lot less likely. Surely the above article shows how easy it could be in the West especially with growing PC and the religious, modesty and PC implications of questioning women wearing Burkhas.

If you think Muslim terrorists won’t use that to their advantage you would be very naive and you don’t sound naive to me. Besides they already have. They have proved they will use whatever simple method they can - they are not particular. Anything that has the desired effect as there are plenty of vulnerable public places.

I don't believe I've twisted your words, I've highlighted a couple of remarks from your previous post that might help you understand where I got that impression from.

If you're saying it's bad that we don't pay women wearing burka's any mind, and by association, we just let them go about their business, then what is the opposite of what you're saying is a bad thing? If ignoring them is bad, then...?

If you think not questioning Muslim women in certain areas (whatever that actually means), is a bad thing, then...?

How big of a threat do you actually think Muslim terrorism is? We have people stabbing each other with knives on a daily basis and no one gives a damn. We have sex crimes on the rise, and no one follows priests around.

Is Muslim terrorism a problem? Yes, absolutely. Should it give you or I the right to takes rights away from people because they have the same imaginary friend? Absolutely not.

You can't win an ideological debate by oppressing people. Here's the real kicker, if you want to combat the root cause of religious terrorism, you need to work with the people that actually follow that religion.

[Brillopad]

I don't believe I've twisted your words, I've highlighted a couple of remarks from your previous post that might help you understand where I got that impression from.

If you're saying it's bad that we don't pay women wearing burka's any mind, and by association, we just let them go about their business, then what is the opposite of what you're saying is a bad thing? If ignoring them is bad, then...?

If you think not questioning Muslim women in certain areas (whatever that actually means), is a bad thing, then...?

How big of a threat do you actually think Muslim terrorism is? We have people stabbing each other with knives on a daily basis and no one gives a damn. We have sex crimes on the rise, and no one follows priests around.

Is Muslim terrorism a problem? Yes, absolutely. Should it give you or I the right to takes rights away from people because they have the same imaginary friend? Absolutely not.

You can't win an ideological debate by oppressing people. Here's the real kicker, if you want to combat the root cause of religious terrorism, you need to work with the people that actually follow that religion.

Plenty of countries have banned them because they see them as a secunity threat. Anything that covers the face is.

What is to stop someone, anyone, donning a Burkha under which is hidden a weapon or a bomb and walking into a department store for instance. My point is is that due to the sensitivity of issues such as religion, female modesty of Muslim women and PC who Is going to ask them to remove their veil. It could be anyone behind it.

If an attack is carried out or another crime is committed it would also be impossible for witnesses or CCTV to identify and catch them.

How anyone can think it is ok for anyone to walk around in public areas covering their faces and identities in this day and age is beyond me.

[Tom4784]

How many terrorist attacks have been committed by people wearing a burkha as a disguise?

You could make a case for banning everything out of fear of terrorism but to do so would mean that terrorism wins.

[Withano]

If an attack is carried out or another crime is committed it would also be impossible for witnesses or CCTV to identify and catch them.

Are you confusing a burqa with Harry Potters invisibility cloak?

[Brillopad]

Banning the burqa isnt going to stop terrorism. We never considered banning jeans when Mair murdered Cox, we never considered banning tshirts when Abedi bombed Manchester Arena, so I'd argue that your problem is more to do with Islam in general than the clothing of terrorists. And thats just a little bit sad.

Do jeans and tee shirts hide faces and identity then? What the wearing of the Burkha would do is make it harder to identify and catch anyone committing any kind of crime, including terrorism. If you can’t see the difference.

[Withano]

Do jeans and tee shirts hide faces and identity then? What the wearing of the Burkha would do is make it harder to identify and catch anyone committing any kind of crime, including terrorism. If you can’t see the difference.

Maybe it would help your case if you knew of one example where a terrorist got away with their crimes because they hid their face and then hid from every other cctv camera he passed on their way out of the crime scene?

You're really just suggesting an impossibly imaginary crime could happen, and we must stop that immediately.

[The Slim Reaper]

Plenty of countries have banned them because they see them as a secunity threat. Anything that covers the face is.

What is to stop someone, anyone, donning a Burkha under which is hidden a weapon or a bomb and walking into a department store for instance. My point is is that due to the sensitivity of issues such as religion, female modesty of Muslim women and PC who Is going to ask them to remove their veil. It could be anyone behind it.

If an attack is carried out or another crime is committed it would also be impossible for witnesses or CCTV to identify and catch them.

How anyone can think it is ok for anyone to walk around in public areas covering their faces and identities in this day and age is beyond me.

You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I don't like the veil either, but I don't have any rights to tell another human what they can/can't wear of their own choosing.

Why would you even need a burka to smuggle a bomb into a department store? Just carry it in a bag.

What about those snidey nuns? Could they be carrying bombs under their robes too?

[user104658]

What is to stop someone, anyone, donning a Burkha under which is hidden a weapon or a bomb and walking into a department store for instance.


Right but you could hide weapons or a bomb under a large coat, and anyone walking into a department store with a gun or a bomb has no need to cover their identity because they're not planning to make it out alive. Are you suggesting that we should ban large coats, and all other baggy / oversized clothing?

[Tom4784]

Using a burkha in a terrorist attack in a western country doesn't make much sense anyway, people take notice of people that wear burkhas, surely the point of a disguise in terrorist attacks is to get into a place where the attack will happen without raising suspicion?

Withano's points about T-shirts and Jeans is true, nobody looks twice at someone in normal clothes.

[bots]

Using a burkha in a terrorist attack in a western country doesn't make much sense anyway, people take notice of people that wear burkhas, surely the point of a disguise in terrorist attacks is to get into a place where the attack will happen without raising suspicion?

Withano's points about T-shirts and Jeans is true, nobody looks twice at someone in normal clothes.

thats very true, i remember after the tube bombings, anyone with a rucksack was watched constantly

[Brillopad]

You're looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I don't like the veil either, but I don't have any rights to tell another human what they can/can't wear of their own choosing.

Why would you even need a burka to smuggle a bomb into a department store? Just carry it in a bag.

What about those snidey nuns? Could they be carrying bombs under their robes too?

Fair point about the bag. But covering faces should be a Nono and nuns don’t cover their faces. Faces are our identity and trained personnel can tell a lot about peoples’ behaviours/intentions from their facial expressions and general body language. Both are completely hidden by a Burkha.

Although I agree in principle with people choosing what they wear, like anything there have to be exceptions and wearing garments that cover identity have to be amongst them.

[Withano]

You must have an annual breakdown on the 31st of October

[The Slim Reaper]

You must have an annual breakdown on the 31st of October

http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/customavatars/avatar69890_17.gif

[Brillopad]

Maybe it would help your case if you knew of one example where a terrorist got away with their crimes because they hid their face and then hid from every other cctv camera he passed on their way out of the crime scene?

You're really just suggesting an impossibly imaginary crime could happen, and we must stop that immediately.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/16/beneath-burqa-bruised-and-badly-beaten-teenager.html

[Tom4784]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/16/beneath-burqa-bruised-and-badly-beaten-teenager.html

The original story that opinion piece is talking about doesn't have anything to do with terrorism? The imaginary links to terrorism is provided by the Fox News writer.

You should really read your links before you post 'em.

[Withano]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/16/beneath-burqa-bruised-and-badly-beaten-teenager.html

Did you misread my post or that article / rhetorical

[The Slim Reaper]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/16/beneath-burqa-bruised-and-badly-beaten-teenager.html

Fox news is well known for their measured approach to Muslims.

[Vicky.]

Are you confusing a burqa with Harry Potters invisibility cloak?

To be fair here, it WOULD be hard to identify someone on cctv if they were covering their face. Same as it would be hard to identify someone who, for example, walked into a shop with a motorcycle helmet on.

But I don't really think banning anything is the answer here. If security guards are worried about stopping people in burkhas, they need to (excuse the phrase, it just works best here) man the **** up.

I have to be honest here though, I do think anywhere that requires cctv...people should not be able to cover their face. This would include the likes of shopping centres and such. You would not be able to go shopping in a balaclava. But at the same time, this would mean a lot of Muslim women could not go shopping or anything which is kind of unfair too. So I don't know the answer really :S

[Brillopad]

Did you misread my post or that article / rhetorical

It suffiiciently clarifies all the reasons why such a garment should not be allowed in the West including its use by terrorists and criminals.

The garment is as offensive to many women as the robes of the KKK are to many black people and that would not be allowed on our streets. As it is categorically not a requirement of Islam for women to wear it then religious reasons are not even relevant.

[Withano]

To be fair here, it WOULD be hard to identify someone on cctv if they were covering their face. Same as it would be hard to identify someone who, for example, walked into a shop with a motorcycle helmet on.

But I don't really think banning anything is the answer here. If security guards are worried about stopping people in burkhas, they need to (excuse the phrase, it just works best here) man the **** up.

I have to be honest here though, I do think anywhere that requires cctv...people should not be able to cover their face. This would include the likes of shopping centres and such. You would not be able to go shopping in a balaclava. But at the same time, this would mean a lot of Muslim women could not go shopping or anything which is kind of unfair too. So I don't know the answer really :S

Not really, cctv can follow their movements for hours really, before and after the attack. Unless their attack is in some secluded area, which would probably make it even easier cos they'd likely get there and get away by car.

[Withano]

The garment is as offensive to many women as the robes of the KKK are to many black people and that would not be allowed on our streets.

You're literally a living parody

[Vicky.]

Not really, cctv can follow their movements for hours really, before and after the attack. Unless their attack is in some secluded area, which would probably make it even easier cos they'd likely get there and get away by car.

But what use is that if you still cannot see who they are? :suspect:

Not trying to be awkward here. Just don't quite understand

[Brillopad]

You're literally a living parody

And your baiting is as usual completely transparent. But of course you have your saviour at hand which explains it. No further clarification required as many wil get it.

[Withano]

But what use is that if you still cannot see who they are? :suspect:

Not trying to be awkward here. Just don't quite understand

You'd follow the movements of the terrorist until you'd catch up with them.

I mean, I'd almost argue that "the one walking hastily in a burqa" is a better descriptor than "brown eyes and a cute v neck t shirt".

These attacks almost always happen in city centres with heavy cctv, which is probably why this isnt an actual issue outside of Brillos mind.

[Withano]

And your baiting is as usual completely transparent. But of course you have your saviour at hand which explains it. No further clarification required as many wil get it.

You just compared the meaning behind the robes of the KKK to a burqa. Its like you literally eat the daily mail for breakfast.

[Vicky.]

You'd follow the movements of the terrorist until you'd catch up with them.

I mean, I'd almost argue that "the one walking hastily in a burqa" is a better descriptor than "brown eyes and a cute v neck t shirt".

These attacks almost always happen in city centres with heavy cctv, which is probably why this isnt an actual issue outside of Brillos mind.

Yeah thats a decent point I guess.

My issue would be..there are always blind spots in cctv. Would be quite easy to duck into an alley and take off the burkha, then the people watching will still be looking for a quick moving dementor.

But thats unlikely too really...that they would also know where the blind spots were and such (I know where all the blind spots are in Durham city centre :D Brother in law works on the cctv)

[Brillopad]

You'd follow the movements of the terrorist until you'd catch up with them.

I mean, I'd almost argue that "the one walking hastily in a burqa" is a better descriptor than "brown eyes and a cute v neck t shirt".

These attacks almost always happen in city centres, which is probably why this isnt an actual issue outside of Brillos mind.

They could disappear into a blind spot, slip of the Burkha, and quickly merge into the crowd. In a busy shopping centre it would be hard to identify them.

[Withano]

They could disappear into a blind spot, slip of the Burkha, and quickly merge into the crowd. In a busy shopping centre it would be hard to identify them.

So could literally every other criminal in the entire history of the world ever, but lets not campaign for compulsary nudism at all times.

[Tom4784]

It suffiiciently clarifies all the reasons why such a garment should not be allowed in the West including its use by terrorists and criminals.

The garment is as offensive to many women as the robes of the KKK are to many black people and that would not be allowed on our streets. As it is categorically not a requirement of Islam for women to wear it then religious reasons are not even relevant.

It's an opinion piece on a story about domestic abuse.

You were asked if you had an example of a terrorist that got away because they wore a burkha. You didn't offer up an example, you just posted an opinion piece that took a real case of domestic violence and haphazardly used it to link to terrorism.

[Brillopad]

You just compared the meaning behind the robes of the KKK to a burqa. Its like you literally eat the daily mail for breakfast.

That demonstrates your lack of understanding or concern for what the Burkha represents to many women. Female slavery is an insignificant issue to some men for obvious reasons.

[DemolitionRed]

Surely the thread is more to do with the problem/worry that men can dress as women in a burkha.:shrug:

Like The Slim Reaper says: what about terrorists that use cars? How many terrorist atrocities have we seen by men dressed in a burka ? :shrug:

[Tom4784]

Yeah thats a decent point I guess.

My issue would be..there are always blind spots in cctv. Would be quite easy to duck into an alley and take off the burkha, then the people watching will still be looking for a quick moving dementor.

But thats unlikely too really...that they would also know where the blind spots were and such (I know where all the blind spots are in Durham city centre :D Brother in law works on the cctv)

You would have to have knowledge of where blindspots are though which isn't exactly common knowledge, if a terrorist disappeared down an alley it doesn't mean they won't show up on another set of cameras at the other end.

There's too much CCTV to commit such a serious crime in public and get away with it. If they don't get caught at the scene of the crime then it's always a few hours later.

[Withano]

That demonstrates your lack of understanding or concern for what the Burkha represents to many women. Female slavery is an insignificant issue to some men for obvious reasons.

Right but you are acknowledging that there is a literal meaning, and a misinterpretation? Surely. I genuinely don't know how far back I need to go with you.

There is only one meaning with the KKK robes. And your comparison is ugly, and idiotic.

[DemolitionRed]

Who is this guy? Can we keep him.

Seconds that!

[Vicky.]

So could literally every other criminal in the entire history of the world ever, but lets not campaign for compulsary nudism at all times.

What a lovely thought :D

[Brillopad]

It's an opinion piece on a story about domestic abuse.

You were asked if you had an example of a terrorist that got away because they wore a burkha. You didn't offer up an example, you just posted an opinion piece that took a real case of domestic violence and haphazardly used it to link to terrorism.

I explained it’s relevance in my opinion. There have been many reports of criminals/terrorists escaping in Burkhas as i’m Sure many have seen.

To try to imply that to cover your face in public areas is ok in modern times when security and identity increasingly play an important part in our everyday lives is ludicrous. One rule for all.

[Brillopad]

Seconds that!

The desperation for alies.

[DemolitionRed]

Plenty of countries have banned them because they see them as a secunity threat. Anything that covers the face is.

What is to stop someone, anyone, donning a Burkha under which is hidden a weapon or a bomb and walking into a department store for instance. My point is is that due to the sensitivity of issues such as religion, female modesty of Muslim women and PC who Is going to ask them to remove their veil. It could be anyone behind it.

If an attack is carried out or another crime is committed it would also be impossible for witnesses or CCTV to identify and catch them.

How anyone can think it is ok for anyone to walk around in public areas covering their faces and identities in this day and age is beyond me.

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

As for the terrorist attacks in Europe, not a single one has been carried out by a man or a woman wearing a face covering. Why would they when they have free movement? People are more likely to be suspicious of someone fully covered than they are of a man wearing western style clothing.

[DemolitionRed]

The desperation for alies.

On here yes. On other popular media forums I use, most people think similar to me.

[arista]

Its a War out there in Pakistan
never ending.

[Brillopad]

Right but you are acknowledging that there is a literal meaning, and a misinterpretation? Surely. I genuinely don't know how far back I need to go with you.

There is only one meaning with the KKK robes. And your comparison is ugly, and idiotic.

Your dismissal of the significance of requiring a woman to wear a Burkha and how offencive that is and how it is often used to enslave and abuse women who have no power is what many women would find ugly and idiotic.

It is every bit as offensive. Slavery is slavery and can’t be measured with one deemed to be more serious than another.

[Vicky.]

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

As for the terrorist attacks in Europe, not a single one has been carried out by a man or a woman wearing a face covering. Why would they when they have free movement? People are more likely to be suspicious of someone fully covered than they are of a man wearing western style clothing.

Another great point actually. Wearing a burka or something draws attention to you. Attention is not good if planning an attack.

[Withano]

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.



This deserves its own thread, would make an interesting discussion.

[Withano]

Your dismissal of the significance of requiring a woman to wear a Burkha and how offencive that is and how it is often used to enslave and abuse women who have no power is what many women would find ugly and idiotic.

It is every bit as offensive. Slavery is slavery and can’t be measured with one deemed to be more serious than another.

...I have no idea if you're baiting, if you're serious, and if you're okay. So I don't really know how to respond to this, without repeating myself? The KKK robes are used for one purpose. You compared this to a burqa, but not the burqa's main purpose, some misinterpretation of the burqa. Which was inappropriate and ugly. Take a breather, brillo.

[Brillopad]

France banned them in 2011. France is now considered the highest risk country in Europe for ISIS terrorist attacks.

As for the terrorist attacks in Europe, not a single one has been carried out by a man or a woman wearing a face covering. Why would they when they have free movement? People are more likely to be suspicious of someone fully covered than they are of a man wearing western style clothing.

So what are you suggesting - we bow down to terrorism and don’t oppose the treatment of women for fear of retribution.

If there is a correlation it is because many Muslim men want the right to be able to treat women as property and are not going to give it up easily.

[Brillopad]

...I have no idea if you're baiting, if you're serious, and if you're okay. So I don't really know how to respond to this, without repeating myself? The KKK robes are used for one purpose. You compared this to a burqa, but not the burqa's main purpose, some misinterpretation of the burqa. Which was inappropriate and ugly. Take a breather, brillo.

What misinterpretation - it is not a religious requirement of Islam - just a convenient interpretation to enable certain types of men to control and abuse powerless women.

[Withano]

What misinterpretation - it is not a religious requirement of Islam - just a convenient interpretation to enable certain types of men to control and abuse powerless women.

"And I know this because last week for breakfast, I had a nice bacon sarnie, topped with fried egg, mustard, relish, and page 22 of the Daily Mail".

[Brillopad]

"And I know this because last week for breakfast, I had a nice bacon sarnie, topped with fried egg, mustard, relish, and page 22 of the Daily Mail".


You’re the one obsessed with the DM not me. What I can say is that most tabloids are no better, including the Guardian, and many are worse. I source my info from many different sources as I have demonstrated on many occasions. But just you go ahead with your spurious insinuations if that’s what rocks your boat.

[Tom4784]

I explained it’s relevance in my opinion. There have been many reports of criminals/terrorists escaping in Burkhas as i’m Sure many have seen.

To try to imply that to cover your face in public areas is ok in modern times when security and identity increasingly play an important part in our everyday lives is ludicrous. One rule for all.

You gave a tonedeaf comparison comparing the KKK hood to the burkha and little else.

If there's been that many reports of terrorists escaping in the west due to use of a burkha then why haven't you been able to link us to one? You were asked to provide a story and you've failed to do so.

[Jamie89]

So what are you suggesting - we bow down to terrorism and don’t oppose the treatment of women for fear of retribution.

If there is a correlation it is because many Muslim men want the right to be able to treat women as property and are not going to give it up easily.

Are you suggesting with this that risk has risen in France since the burka was banned because of muslim men's reaction to the burka being banned? I'm confused because you also seem to be saying that the burka should be banned over here as doing so will reduce the risk of terrorism? Do these two things not conflict?

equally, they could dress up as police officers, army etc etc etc .... criminals have been dressing up in disguise for generations, our reaction has never been to ban what they are mimicking

A burka isn't really a disguise in the same sort of way as most outfits and costumes though since it covers their whole face and identity which I think is the main problem people have with the it? People who cover their faces using a disguise really do stand out and I think the fear is that the more 'normal' the burka becomes, the less someone will stand out when wearing one, so it will effectively become a disguise that not only hides the face but the person will also fit into a crowd without being noticed, so even though disguises have been around for generations, this would be a particularly unique scenario and very different to any other kind of disguise I can think of.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it tbh, I don't realistically think that security services would stop themselves from questioning someone wearing a burka if they felt there was a security risk. But I understand the general concerns of someone being able to completely hide their identity in a public place. There's a lot of hypotheticals though and I just don't see any direct link between the burka and terrorism so general concerns about the burka aside I'm not sure if banning it would be all that useful with regards to terrorism?

[Withano]

Are you suggesting with this that risk has risen in France since the burka was banned because of muslim men's reaction to the burka being banned? I'm confused because you also seem to be saying that the burka should be banned over here as doing so will reduce the risk of terrorism? Do these two things not conflict?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/977fc640b12129de1783a550bc02f3fd/tenor.gif?itemid=4926672

[DemolitionRed]

So what are you suggesting - we bow down to terrorism and don’t oppose the treatment of women for fear of retribution.

If there is a correlation it is because many Muslim men want the right to be able to treat women as property and are not going to give it up easily.


So this isn't really about terrorism, its about your mythical belief that its the Muslim men who make them wear it.

Sorry mate, this has been done to death... add tedium. Nothing will change your tainted view and so I'm not going to continue this conversation with you.

[DemolitionRed]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/977fc640b12129de1783a550bc02f3fd/tenor.gif?itemid=4926672

PMSL

[Brillopad]

Are you suggesting with this that risk has risen in France since the burka was banned because of muslim men's reaction to the burka being banned? I'm confused because you also seem to be saying that the burka should be banned over here as doing so will reduce the risk of terrorism? Do these two things not conflict?



A burka isn't really a disguise in the same sort of way as most outfits and costumes though since it covers their whole face and identity which I think is the main problem people have with the it? People who cover their faces using a disguise really do stand out and I think the fear is that the more 'normal' the burka becomes, the less someone will stand out when wearing one, so it will effectively become a disguise that not only hides the face but the person will also fit into a crowd without being noticed, so even though disguises have been around for generations, this would be a particularly unique scenario and very different to any other kind of disguise I can think of.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it tbh, I don't realistically think that security services would stop themselves from questioning someone wearing a burka if they felt there was a security risk. But I understand the general concerns of someone being able to completely hide their identity in a public place. There's a lot of hypotheticals though and I just don't see any direct link between the burka and terrorism so general concerns about the burka aside I'm not sure if banning it would be all that useful with regards to terrorism?

I was responding to a poster who seemed to be suggesting that there was a link between banning the Burkha in France and it apparently being the highest risk country in Europe for terrorist attacks.

I don’t know if that is true but rather flippantly suggested that if so it would likely be due to an act of defiance from Muslin terrorists opposed to equal rights for Muslim women and intent on trying to force France and the West to accept their backward views on women and way of life through violence and fear. As has been seen on many occasions fear and violence are clearly the weapons of choice for Muslim terrorists who refuse to integrate or accept the values and laws of the countries they forced their way into. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, maybe it has more to do with numbers. If there is a larger Muslim population in France there may be a higher percentage of Muslim terrorists - I don’t know.

But I also feel that the Burkha could provide Muslim terrorists (male and female) and general criminals with the anninimity to commit terrorist attacks and criminal acts - they have after all already been used this way in Europe and the Middle-East. I have hardly plucked such a scenario out of the air. I do however think they are separate issues involving the wearing of the Burkha so don’t really see a conflict between them tbh.

[Brillopad]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/977fc640b12129de1783a550bc02f3fd/tenor.gif?itemid=4926672

Any excuse to insult. Maybe I should follow your example and spend my time sticking pegs in my hair. Doh!

[Brillopad]

So this isn't really about terrorism, its about your mythical belief that its the Muslim men who make them wear it.

Sorry mate, this has been done to death... add tedium. Nothing will change your tainted view and so I'm not going to continue this conversation with you.

No problem mate!

As to whose view is tainted is a matter of opinion!

[Withano]

I was responding to a poster who seemed to be suggesting that there was a link between banning the Burkha in France and it apparently being the highest risk country in Europe for terrorist attacks.

I don’t know if that is true but rather flippantly suggested that if so it would likely be due to an act of defiance from Muslin terrorists opposed to equal rights for Muslim women and intent on trying to force France and the West to accept their backward views on women and way of life through violence and fear. As has been seen on many occasions fear and violence are clearly the weapons of choice for Muslim terrorists who refuse to integrate or accept the values and laws of the countries they forced their way into. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, maybe it has more to do with numbers. If there is a larger Muslim population in France there may be a higher percentage of Muslim terrorists - I don’t know.

But I also feel that the Burkha could provide Muslim terrorists (male and female) and general criminals with the anninimity to commit terrorist attacks and criminal acts - they have after all already been used this way in Europe and the Middle-East. I have hardly plucked such a scenario out of the air. I do however think they are separate issues involving the wearing of the Burkha so don’t really see a conflict between them tbh.

"On one hand if terrorism is up in France it's because Muslim men don't like the burqa ban. But on the other hand, we should probably ban it here because it's an anonymity issue, but in conclusion I think these are separate issues" I've never used a more accurate gif in my life.

[Brillopad]

"On one hand if terrorism is up in France it's because Muslim men don't like the burqa ban. But on the other hand, we should probably ban it here because it's an anonymity issue, but in conclusion I think these are separate issues" I've never used a more accurate gif in my life.

Jamie explained it much better - a second-rate version was not required.

Maybe Muslim terrorists in France were miffed at the removal of a potential weapon - lots of ifs and buts. Whatever the reason one thing is for sure you don’t have all the answers despite thinking you do. Go back to your pegs.

[Withano]

Jamie explained it much better - a second-rate version was not required.

Maybe Muslim terrorists in France were miffed at the removal of a potential weapon - lots of ifs and buts. Whatever the reason one thing is for sure you don’t have all the answers despite thinking you do. Go back to your pegs.

Out of interest, with your contrary arguments pointed out. Are you now saying ban the burqa, don't ban the burqa, or that you don't know?

[Brillopad]

Out of interest, with your contrary arguments pointed out. Are you now saying ban the burqa, don't ban the burqa, or that you don't know?

I haven’t changed my opinion. There is no place for such a blatant flag of discrimination in the West.

[Withano]

I haven’t changed my opinion. There is no place for such a blatant flag of discrimination in the West.

But your own logic has suggested that this promotes and enhances terrorism. Odd stance to take.

[Brillopad]

But your own logic has suggested that this promotes and enhances terrorism. Odd stance to take.

If you read the posts properly instead of cherry-picking the parts you think will undermine my opinions you may see, or not if it suits, that I didn’t suggest that, I only offered up a reason, amongst others, as to why France has the highest level of Muslim terrorism according to a post I initially responded to. Even if it did increase terrorism the last thing I would do is bow down to such attempted intimidation. I thought that should be pretty obvious to most anyway!

Got it? :wavey:

[bots]

One really has to put things in context. Out of the entire population in the UK, how many are actually wearing burkas. It really isn't the most common attire, and its really not likely to increase to any extent

Burkhas in Pakistan are obviously a lot more common, and therefore it is a method of blending in. That just doesn't apply here. The point being that its impossible to equate the 2 countries and apply the same level of deception/threat because they are fundamentally different.

[Withano]

If you read the posts properly instead of cherry-picking the parts you think will undermine my opinions you may see, or not if it suits, that I didn’t suggest that, I only offered up a reason, amongst others, as to why France has the highest level of Muslim terrorism according to a post I initially responded to. Even if it did increase terrorism the last thing I would do is bow down to such attempted intimidation. I thought that should be pretty obvious to most anyway!

Got it? :wavey:

No, not really, even by your standards, this train of thought is entirely incoherent.

[Brillopad]

No, not really, even by your standards, this train of thought is entirely incoherent.

As are your continuous attempted smart arse comments. Note the use of the “attempted”. You never give up trying though. :bored:

[Brillopad]

One really has to put things in context. Out of the entire population in the UK, how many are actually wearing burkas. It really isn't the most common attire, and its really not likely to increase to any extent

Burkhas in Pakistan are obviously a lot more common, and therefore it is a method of blending in. That just doesn't apply here. The point being that its impossible to equate the 2 countries and apply the same level of deception/threat because they are fundamentally different.

I hope you are right, although of course there other objections to the wearing of it in the West as well, but I guess time will give us the only true answer - for the moment we can only speculate.

But if you are wrong and the wearing of it increases significantly it could be too late to change the attitudes that go hand-in-hand with the wearing of it. On this I would be happy to be proved wrong.

[Kizzy]

So what's the solution then, we keep it and have the same level of risk or ban it and risk the threat increase?
Personally I don't like them, not for any threat risk but purely the cultural subjugation it represents.

[Tom4784]

Any excuse to insult. Maybe I should follow your example and spend my time sticking pegs in my hair. Doh!

??

The desperation for alies.

Just one example of you being insulting in this topic. Don't act like a victim when you have been insulting to multiple people in this topic.

[Brillopad]

??



Just one example of you being insulting in this topic. Don't act like a victim when you have been insulting to multiple people in this topic.

Funny that I nearly commented on an insulting post of yours recently but restrained myself.

The first one was a direct response to an insult to me or is it only ok for you and posters who are friends of yours. The one starting it and therefore baiting bears the brunt of the blame and should be being corrected. The second was jokey. Nice try.

[Tom4784]

Your view is conflicted and incoherent though and your reasoning doesn't make it any less so. You are ignoring a real link in favour of your imaginary acts of violence committed by imaginary people avoiding escape by using Burkhas when multiple people in this topic have explained to you that, in the west, the Burkha is conspicuous, you can't get to wear you want without drawing attention to yourself and that's the last thing a terrorist wants before they attack.

I don't like the Burkha but I don't agree with taking away a woman's choice to wear it in areas that are not security risks.

[Brillopad]

Your view is conflicted and incoherent though and your reasoning doesn't make it any less so. You are ignoring a real link in favour of your imaginary acts of violence committed by imaginary people avoiding escape by using Burkhas when multiple people in this topic have explained to you that, in the west, the Burkha is conspicuous, you can't get to wear you want without drawing attention to yourself and that's the last thing a terrorist wants before they attack.

I don't like the Burkha but I don't agree with taking away a woman's choice to wear it in areas that are not security risks.

No it isn’t. The poster in question seemed to be confused as to who actually stated Terrorism had increased in France since the banning of the Burkha, and was attempting to imply I had said that when I suggested some reasons as to why I thought that was.

I have nothing more to say to you as I know exactly where this is going and I am not playing as I will be the obvious loser due to power imbalances.

[Tom4784]

No it isn’t. The poster in question seemed to be confused as to who actually stated Terrorism had increased in France since the banning of the Burkha, and was attempting to imply I had said that when I suggested some reasons as to why I thought that was.

I have nothing more to say to you as I know exactly where this is going and I am not playing as I will be the obvious loser due to power imbalances.

Ah the ol 'I can't win the argument so I'm gonna make out that Dezzy will somehow decide to ban me if I try even though he hasn't misused his mod privileges in the 7+ years he's been one. '

I will take this post for what it is, an admission of defeat.

[Brillopad]

Ah the ol 'I can't win the argument so I'm gonna make out that Dezzy will somehow decide to ban me if I try even though he hasn't misused his mod privileges in the 7+ years he's been one. '

I will take this post for what it is, an admission of defeat.

You do that as I won’t give you the satisfaction. :wavey:

[Jamie89]

I was responding to a poster who seemed to be suggesting that there was a link between banning the Burkha in France and it apparently being the highest risk country in Europe for terrorist attacks.

I don’t know if that is true but rather flippantly suggested that if so it would likely be due to an act of defiance from Muslin terrorists opposed to equal rights for Muslim women and intent on trying to force France and the West to accept their backward views on women and way of life through violence and fear. As has been seen on many occasions fear and violence are clearly the weapons of choice for Muslim terrorists who refuse to integrate or accept the values and laws of the countries they forced their way into. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, maybe it has more to do with numbers. If there is a larger Muslim population in France there may be a higher percentage of Muslim terrorists - I don’t know.

But I also feel that the Burkha could provide Muslim terrorists (male and female) and general criminals with the anninimity to commit terrorist attacks and criminal acts - they have after all already been used this way in Europe and the Middle-East. I have hardly plucked such a scenario out of the air. I do however think they are separate issues involving the wearing of the Burkha so don’t really see a conflict between them tbh.

I think DR was using the example of France just to point out that banning the burka wouldn't necessarily reduce terrorism, rather than implying that terrorism rates have increased because of it being banned, which is what I thought you were suggesting (which is what would have conflicted with your earlier posts :p )

One of my issues with banning the Burkha is what would happen to the women who currently wear it. If they were to become confined to their homes how that would affect the oppression of them and their general well being.

One really has to put things in context. Out of the entire population in the UK, how many are actually wearing burkas. It really isn't the most common attire, and its really not likely to increase to any extent

Burkhas in Pakistan are obviously a lot more common, and therefore it is a method of blending in. That just doesn't apply here. The point being that its impossible to equate the 2 countries and apply the same level of deception/threat because they are fundamentally different.

Yeah I think this is probably true actually. Even if the rates of muslim people in the UK increase it's such a small percentage of them that wear it I don't think it would ever likely be seen as 'normal'.

In France before the Burka was banned:

"0.04% of the French Muslim population, and less than 0.003% of the general population of France" - (and even that figure is 5 times higher than initial estimates which found that only 367 women in the whole country wore one, but that was deemed too low so it was inflated).

"The low number of women wearing the burqa in France reflects wider European estimates of Muslim women who cover their faces, where figures are either correspondingly low, or so low as to be impossible to record."

http://theconversation.com/so-few-muslim-women-wear-the-burqa-in-europe-that-banning-it-is-a-waste-of-time-82957

[Oliver_W]

That general part of the world is a mess, people kill each other all the time over there. I bet they utilise burkhas fairly often too. But that has no relevance to face coverings here.

[Kizzy]

Can I just ask, who is sticking pegs in their hair...and why?

[Brillopad]

Can I just ask, who is sticking pegs in their hair...and why?

Just a little Home vid he posted on here showing him putting pegs on his beard.

[Oliver_W]

Just a little Home vid he posted on here showing him putting pegs on his beard.

Why bring that into a discussion about face coverings and murder? I'm sure at least a handful of people who want face coverings banned put pegs in strange places, but such eccentricities don't mean anything.

[DemolitionRed]

That general part of the world is a mess, people kill each other all the time over there. I bet they utilise burkhas fairly often too. But that has no relevance to face coverings here.

And who made it a mess? who caused the present mayhem? Who trained ISIS? Who gave ISIS their weapons? Who invaded their countries? who toppled their governments? Who put sanctions on those countries, sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents? Are you even aware that for every westerner killed by a Muslim, a hundred Muslims have been killed by westerners and that includes 9/11.

Yes its a mess, but the west, mainly the U.S is responsible for much of that mess. The United States has killed a very large number of Muslim individuals over the past three decades and most of them were just innocent bystanders.

As tragic as it is when we see terrorist attacks on our own shores. As sad as it is to see our own innocent people being attacked by random Muslim terrorists; the saying, 'you reap what you sow' meaning, you will eventually have to face up to the consequence of your actions, has never been more meaningful than it has at this present time.

Every innocent life lost is a tragedy. Not understanding why this tragedy is happening to us in the hear and now is also a tragedy.

Edited to add: The propaganda would like us to believe our battle is with IS and yet we talk about Muslims and IS as though they were the same thing. IS kill Muslims. IS kill Christians. Who is our battle really with and who are we actually fighting?

[Withano]

Just a little Home vid he posted on here showing him putting pegs on his beard.

Wait thats why haha? I thought it was some old fashioned phrase so I never even questioned it. (It wasn't actually me btw, interesting to know that you would reference a light hearted vid months later in a serious discussion as a personal put down. Quite telling of the type of person you are).

[Jamie89]

Howling at the pegs :laugh2:

[Brillopad]

Wait thats why haha? I thought it was some old fashioned phrase so I never even questioned it. (It wasn't actually me btw, interesting to know that you would reference a light hearted vid months later in a serious discussion as a personal put down. Quite telling of the type of person you are).

There would be no need if you weren’t so quick to use personal put downs yourself - you were saying about being quite telling...

[Kizzy]

YDw48r7HFBU

[smudgie]

I love Buddy Holly.
Hubby sings this song to me.:blush:

[Oliver_W]

.
Y'mean because of how peaceful the Middle East was before the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

[DemolitionRed]

Y'mean because of how peaceful the Middle East was before the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

Our division of the Ottoman empire did change the course of history in the middle east and was an immoral act by the west that made that entire area more unstable and unpredictable. Everything since then has been about securing and preserving borders. Colonialism never really left the shores of that region. Whilst we became the protectorates of some, we became the enemies of others.

But I wasn’t meaning colonialism, though obviously that is the very root of the problem, I was talking war that was based on an American lie. Going in and leveling cities and re-establishing one puppet government with another. This was about taking over oil fields from an awkward dictator. It was about improving oil security for the U.S. This was about setting up a pricing cartel and save the U.S economy. The reason we took out Sadam ‘the axis of evil’ is because he switched oil from dollars to euros and the reason we are still gunning for Iran is because Iran did the same.

We, the West, have hardly minded our own business. Oil is more precious than gold and we got our hands very dirty in the handling of getting what we deemed to be our fare-share.

[Oliver_W]

...
We, we, we. I have no interest in collective blame. I can't take credit for white men on the moon, all muslims can't share the blame for terrorist acts, just like how Westerners in general can't share the blame for illadvised actions in the Middle East.

[Livia]

We, we, we. I have no interest in collective blame. I can't take credit for white men on the moon, all muslims can't share the blame for terrorist acts, just like how Westerners in general can't share the blame for illadvised actions in the Middle East.

http://rs296.pbsrc.com/albums/mm200/robitusson1/applause.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

[The Slim Reaper]

We, we, we. I have no interest in collective blame. I can't take credit for white men on the moon, all muslims can't share the blame for terrorist acts, just like how Westerners in general can't share the blame for illadvised actions in the Middle East.

I'm damn well taking credit for my honky brothers who landed on the moon. That **** is all me.

If you want to blame anyone for Muslim terrorism, blame the crazy Jews. They started off this insanity with their goddamn holy book crammed full of crazy **** about talking snakes, parting seas and god texting mountains.

Kill all the Jews, and Muslim terrorism would never have happened. If only someone in history had tried this...

[jaxie]

We, we, we. I have no interest in collective blame. I can't take credit for white men on the moon, all muslims can't share the blame for terrorist acts, just like how Westerners in general can't share the blame for illadvised actions in the Middle East.

:clap1:

[Vicky.]

OK honestly, I was kind of following this until the peg thing. Thats totally threw me off.

[Livia]

I'm damn well taking credit for my honky brothers who landed on the moon. That **** is all me.

If you want to blame anyone for Muslim terrorism, blame the crazy Jews. They started off this insanity with their goddamn holy book crammed full of crazy **** about talking snakes, parting seas and god texting mountains.

Kill all the Jews, and Muslim terrorism would never have happened. If only someone in history had tried this...

1) We're not ALL crazy, it's only about 94% of us.
2) We're not that easy to **** with anymore, and
3) Without the Jews you and your honky brothers would still be earthbound.

[user104658]

OK honestly, I was kind of following this until the peg thing. Thats totally threw me off.It's not hard to follow. Brillo pegged Withano and now they're both wracked with guilt and shame.

[Withano]

OK honestly, I was kind of following this until the peg thing. Thats totally threw me off.

She thought this was me because I said it was about three months ago, and I completely forgot about it until she explained


72Rh7gZzin4

[Withano]

It's not hard to follow. Brillo pegged Withano and now they're both wracked with guilt and shame.

Also this

[Vicky.]

Oh dear :laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

We, we, we. I have no interest in collective blame. I can't take credit for white men on the moon, all muslims can't share the blame for terrorist acts, just like how Westerners in general can't share the blame for illadvised actions in the Middle East.

Collective?!?! have you never heard of an editorial ‘we’?
“we Brits get a lot of rain"
“we are a collective power”
“We as a country mourned the death of Princess Diana"

'We' is often used as a bond of empathy when there's a national tragedy or to represent humanity in general. I used it as an inclusive pronoun to the West, not to the individual; but I suspect you know that and your just spouting facetious outrage. :hee:

[Kizzy]

What a crock of ****... many do lump all Muslims as a collective! And when it came to bombing the bejesus out of somewhere a couple of years a go there was a collective 'yes!'
I said no obv and was called 'unpatriotic'.... Like an elephant I never forget!

Colonialists turned a blind eye to subjugation due to the spoils so quit the bull and take the blame and the shame, you earned it!

[Brillopad]

What a crock of ****... many do lump all Muslims as a collective! And when it came to bombing the bejesus out of somewhere a couple of years a go there was a collective 'yes!'
I said no obv and was called 'unpatriotic'.... Like an elephant I never forget!

Colonialists turned a blind eye to subjugation due to the spoils so quit the bull and take the blame and the shame, you earned it!

Rather like the PC brigade are conveniently turning a blind eye to the obvious subjugation of Muslim women in Britain (despite trying to convince us all that it is free choice, who the hell do they think they are trying to kid- only themselves maybe to conveniently fit in with their political beliefs) as they walk around covering themselves from head to toe, in their shame for being women, in the HERE and NOW.

Maybe they should take the blame and the shame they have clearly earned for not practicing what they preach.

[DemolitionRed]

Rather like the PC brigade are conveniently turning a blind eye to the obvious subjugation of Muslim women in Britain (despite trying to convince us all that it is free choice, who the hell do they think they are trying to kid- only themselves maybe to conveniently fit in with their political beliefs) as they walk around covering themselves from head to toe, in their shame for being women, in the HERE and NOW.

Maybe they should take the blame and the shame they have clearly earned for not practicing what they preach.

So you believe people who are protective towards 'Muslim choice' are being politically correct and not because they fight against those who have hate inside them towards a percentage of the masses?

You see, this sort of response is the sort of thing that makes me go off on one. If someone said this on any channel but BB I'd tear them a new one, but on here Brillo your are snugly protected. Surrounded by a PC that protects the few but not the many. This place is your playground

[Cherie]

So you believe people who are protective towards 'Muslim choice' are being politically correct and not because they fight against those who have hate inside them towards a percentage of the masses?

You see, this sort of response is the sort of thing that makes me go off on one. If someone said this on any channel but BB I'd tear them a new one, but on here Brillo your are snugly protected. Surrounded by a PC that protects the few but not the many. This place is your playground


you could do this and risk the infraction, rather than the passive aggressive digs I guess :shrug:

[Livia]

People are suspicious of Muslims because, although not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim... at least the ones wreaking havoc on the west are. But we don't know which ones, and that's the crux of it. So we're pretty much suspicious of all of them. That doesn't mean people don't recognise quite clearly that IS and their like kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.

[Brillopad]

So you believe people who are protective towards 'Muslim choice' are being politically correct and not because they fight against those who have hate inside them towards a percentage of the masses?

You see, this sort of response is the sort of thing that makes me go off on one. If someone said this on any channel but BB I'd tear them a new one, but on here Brillo your are snugly protected. Surrounded by a PC that protects the few but not the many. This place is your playground

Why do I need protecting, I am not abusing Muslims and I am not promoting any kind of abuse towards anyone. You constantly accusing anyone who exercises their right to an opinon in their criticism of Islam as ‘being full of hate’ does a pretty good job though.

That almost sounds like some kind of disguised threat. So you would do what exactly if I dared express my opinion on a misogynistic religion on another site - try to deny me my opinions and shout me down with abuse. Good one. :rolleyes:

[DemolitionRed]

you could do this and risk the infraction, rather than the passive aggressive digs I guess :shrug:

Oh come on, you come over as one of the most passive aggressive people on here.

[DemolitionRed]

People are suspicious of Muslims because, although not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim... at least the ones wreaking havoc on the west are. But we don't know which ones, and that's the crux of it. So we're pretty much suspicious of all of them. That doesn't mean people don't recognise quite clearly that IS and their like kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Oh dear Livia, you used the word 'we'... collective was it?!

[DemolitionRed]

Why do I need protecting, I am not abusing Muslims and I am not promoting any kind of abuse towards anyone. You constantly accusing anyone who exercises their right to an opinon in their criticism of Islam as ‘being full of hate’ does a pretty good job though.

That almost sounds like some kind of disguised threat. So you would do what exactly if I dared express my opinion on a misogynistic religion on another site - try to deny me my opinions and shout me down with abuse. Good one. :rolleyes:

What has this got to do with what I said. You said "Rather like the PC brigade are conveniently turning a blind eye to the obvious subjugation of Muslim women in Britain (despite trying to convince us all that it is free choice, who the hell do they think they are trying to kid- only themselves maybe to conveniently fit in with their political beliefs) as they walk around covering themselves from head to toe, in their shame for being women, in the HERE and NOW."

Which suggests that any of us who stands up to a Muslim womans rights is doing it because they are being PC. I said (though not my exact words) you can say that about people like its a 'real' thing simply because you believe its a 'real' thing, but its not a real thing, its Brillo propaganda.

What I get from your thinking is, you believe everyone is disgusted with the subjugation of Muslim women who are (in your mind) forced into wearing the veil and those who speak out against people like you feel the same as you do but fight against you because of PC. In other words you are calling me...indirectly, a fake and I take issue with that.

Let me be clear about this none existent disguised threat. If I was on a none PC forum and you said that, I would of come back at you with some very insulting words but I'm not so I can't.

[Cherie]

Oh come on, you come over as one of the most passive aggressive people on here.

I'm not the one pointing out, ooo I would tear you a new one if I was on a different site, just get on with it if that is what you want to do :umm2: no one is going to take you out and shoot you, the worst that will happen is you will get an infraction, but carry on bringing it back to me, and if I want to say something I will say it I don't need to hide under the guise that on another site I would make a different point :hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh come on, you come over as one of the most passive aggressive people on here.

what a nasty and personal thing to say

:bored:

[Niamh.]

Please stop getting personal with eachother and stick to the topic

[Brillopad]

what a nasty and personal thing to say

:bored:

Cherie is one of the most reasonable posters on here whilst at the same time having the courage to stand her ground. An admirable poster.

[Cherie]

Thank you both, now we better get back to the point or Niamh will take us out..literally :omgno:

[smudgie]

On the actual subject, men did dress in the burkha to murder poor innocents, so we know it can happen.:shrug:
Perhaps if the face can be shown in public places it would suffice.

[Livia]

On the actual subject, men did dress in the burkha to murder poor innocents, so we know it can happen.:shrug:
Perhaps if the face can be shown in public places it would suffice.

That's the problem, isn't it. Only a small percentage of Muslims are fundamentalists, but we have no way, as the general public, to identify which ones are. And IS and Hezbollah etc. have no worries about using women and children as human shields so surely Muslims can understand why people are concerned that a section of the public, the section of the public with the most terrorists at the moment, are allowed to walk around incognito. You see women in burkas in banks... motorcyclists are asked to remove their helmets, though. It makes no sense.

[Northern Monkey]

That's the problem, isn't it. Only a small percentage of Muslims are fundamentalists, but we have no way, as the general public, to identify which ones are. And IS and Hezbollah etc. have no worries about using women and children as human shields so surely Muslims can understand why people are concerned that a section of the public, the section of the public with the most terrorists at the moment, are allowed to walk around incognito. You see women in burkas in banks... motorcyclists are asked to remove their helmets, though. It makes no sense.

Yep,I don’t think face coverings should be allowed in public buildings just as helmets like you say.

[Northern Monkey]

Also this idea that criticising Islam is ‘Islamaphobic’ is just a lefty shutdown tactic.
Islamaphobia is a ridiculous word anyway.
People can criticise any religion they like for now.
And it’s little wonder why there’s so much female oppression in Islam when many muslims hang on every word of a prophet who used to beat his 9 year old wife.
Islam needs criticism.So do other religions but other religions are’nt as much of a problem now or taken so literally by the majority of followers.

[Kizzy]

Also this idea that criticising Islam is ‘Islamaphobic’ is just a lefty shutdown tactic.
Islamaphobia is a ridiculous word anyway.
People can criticise any religion they like for now.
And it’s little wonder why there’s so much female oppression in Islam when many muslims hang on every word of a prophet who used to beat his 9 year old wife.
Islam needs criticism.So do other religions but other religions are’nt as much of a problem now or taken so literally by the majority of followers.

Let's call it what it is then... Anti-semitism

[Northern Monkey]

Let's call it what it is then... Anti-semitism

So it’s anti-semitic to criticise a religion?

The day that becomes a law then we know we’re in John McDonell’s cosy little authoritarian nightmare

[Kizzy]

So it’s anti-semitic to criticise a religion?

The day that becomes a law then we know we’re in John McDonell’s cosy little authoritarian nightmare

Obviously it depends on the context.

[DemolitionRed]

So it’s anti-semitic to criticise a religion?

The day that becomes a law then we know we’re in John McDonell’s cosy little authoritarian nightmare

There's nothing wrong with criticism so long as its not constant. When it becomes focussed and constant on just one religeon then it could be seen as anti-semitic.

[Brillopad]

So it’s anti-semitic to criticise a religion?

The day that becomes a law then we know we’re in John McDonell’s cosy little authoritarian nightmare

Someone apparently looked it up, DR I think, and informed us all, after Islamophobia had been called out for what it is - a non-word, that the real word was anti-Semitic. :hehe:

[Northern Monkey]

Obviously it depends on the context.

I’d say anti-semitism is hating a people because of a combination of their religion and race just as racism is hating a people because of their skin colour or race.

Criticising a religion or even the actions of followers of that religion imo doesn’t constitute(and should’nt).

Most rational people don’t hate Muslims or Christians or Jews because they choose to follow a religion.They judge people as they find them on an individual basis.
They do criticise aspects of their religion.Especially the current most oppressive and dangerous religion we are encountering.

[Northern Monkey]

There's nothing wrong with criticism so long as its not constant. When it becomes focussed and constant on just one religeon then it could be seen as anti-semitic.Not imo.I’d say that hating people because of their religion is anti-semitism.

[Brillopad]

There's nothing wrong with criticism so long as its not constant. When it becomes focussed and constant on just one religeon then it could be seen as anti-semitic.

Doesn’t that depend on what they are saying and whether it is true. If someone says it is a misogynistic religion, that would not be a spurious lie and such a religion is then open for criticism. Who gets to decide how much is constant - you it seems.

[DemolitionRed]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

[Livia]

What is this new and interesting use of the phrase anti-Semitism?

[Livia]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

Because before WW2 the Jews were not bombing the citizens of Germany, cutting off their heads, capturing women for rape and sex slavery etc. etc. etc. Hut hey, nice try in comparing the Muslim situation with the Holocaust. I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious.

[Northern Monkey]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

You answered it yourself

1.Yes obviously because “a general distaste for Jewish people“

2.No because “condemning the Islamic faith“

[Cherie]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

Is it any different to how everyone was talking about the IRA in the 90s, Muslims lived in the UK then as well but they weren't talked about. there was plenty anti Irish rhetoric in the DM though, its just what is relevant at the time, there was no name for anti Irish rhetoric either :idc:

[Livia]

Is it any different to how everyone was talking about the IRA in the 90s, Muslims lived in the UK then as well but they weren't talked about. there was plenty anti Irish rhetoric in the DM though, its just what is relevant at the time, there was no name for anti Irish rhetoric either :idc:

Just use anti-Semitism, Cherie, seems it's now a catch-all phrase.

[Kizzy]

Just use anti-Semitism, Cherie, seems it's now a catch-all phrase.

I appreciate it is predominantly used to cover slights aimed at anything related to the Jewish and/or the Jewish faith... but why?
If Islamophobia is not acceptable as an umbrella term and Muslims are by definition Semites where's the issue?

[Brillopad]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

I think the concerns by many about the aforementioned terrorism and hate-speeches/threats made on our streets from many of said religion as well as how we see women and others treated over-seas and here in the name of said religion puts a different slant on it not surprisingly.

It’s a completely different scenario to what the Nazis did to the Jewish people.

[Niamh.]

Deleted more posts in here, I'm just going to close the thread if you all can't stick to the topic and not eachother

[Livia]

Well go on, explain why...

You know why. Although it would be useful for Labour supporters who refuse to believe their own party is anti-Semitic. Now apparently, the term will cover Muslims. Which is interesting... Because Semitism was born waaaaaay before Islam. Islam is less than 2000 years old and Judaism over 5000 years old. But hey, if it suits your particular agenda, then go for it.

[Brillopad]

You know why. Although it would be useful for Labour supporters who refuse to believe their own party is anti-Semitic. Now apparently, the term will cover Muslims. Which is interesting... Because Semitism was born waaaaaay before Islam. Islam is less than 2000 years old and Judaism over 5000 years old. But hey, if it suits your particular agenda, then go for it.

:thumbs:

[Cherie]

Just use anti-Semitism, Cherie, seems it's now a catch-all phrase.

seems to be


I think I will make up my own

Paddyphobia

[Brillopad]

seems to be


I think I will make up my own

Paddyphobia

Opinionphobia.

[Kizzy]

You know why. Although it would be useful for Labour supporters who refuse to believe their own party is anti-Semitic. Now apparently, the term will cover Muslims. Which is interesting... Because Semitism was born waaaaaay before Islam. Islam is less than 2000 years old and Judaism over 5000 years old. But hey, if it suits your particular agenda, then go for it.

I don't that's why I'm asking..

Ignore for a second if you can any Labour slurs

'The three main Semitic religions are. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.'

How can one be more 'Semitic' than the other?

[Oliver_W]

I appreciate it is predominantly used to cover slights aimed at anything related to the Jewish and/or the Jewish faith... but why?
If Islamophobia is not acceptable as an umbrella term and Muslims are by definition Semites where's the issue?

Criticizing the religion of islam shouldn't need a special term, because in its current manifestation and the effects it has on the world, there is plenty to criticize.

[DemolitionRed]

Doesn’t that depend on what they are saying and whether it is true. If someone says it is a misogynistic religion, that would not be a spurious lie and such a religion is then open for criticism. Who gets to decide how much is constant - you it seems.

Yes, of course it depends on if its true but most of what is said come with grains of propaganda nonsense.

You know, the Muslim faith was never a thing until the troubles started. Nobody cared about Muslims being misogynists, just as nobody still cares about Jews being misogynist and you know why? because most Muslim men are not misogynists and most Jewish men are not misogynists. That doesn't mean misogyny doesn't exist in both the Jewish and Muslim communities, it just means its not wide spread.

You stereotype an entire religion. If we were to do the same about Jews there would be absolute outrage and rightly so. Me though, I'm equally outraged for the stereotyping of either.

[DemolitionRed]

I think the concerns by many about the aforementioned terrorism and hate-speeches/threats made on our streets from many of said religion as well as how we see women and others treated over-seas and here in the name of said religion puts a different slant on it not surprisingly.

It’s a completely different scenario to what the Nazis did to the Jewish people.

I'm not talking about what the Nazis did to the Jewish people. I was talking about the rise of the Nazi party before the holocaust began. I was talking about how Jewish people were demonized and subjugated, not only by the rising Nazi party but by the German people.

[Oliver_W]

I'm not talking about what the Nazis did to the Jewish people. I was talking about the rise of the Nazi party before the holocaust began. I was talking about how Jewish people were demonized and subjugated, not only by the rising Nazi party but by the German people.

Were the Jews' actions at the time comparable to a number of muslims' actions today?

[DemolitionRed]

Because before WW2 the Jews were not bombing the citizens of Germany, cutting off their heads, capturing women for rape and sex slavery etc. etc. etc. Hut hey, nice try in comparing the Muslim situation with the Holocaust. I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious.

Oh please don't fake outrage Livia. I didn't for a single moment compare it with the Holocaust.

[DemolitionRed]

Were the Jews' actions at the time comparable to a number of muslims' actions today?

Even if it was, would the Jewish people of deserved what happened to them. The answer is a clear 'NO'.

[DemolitionRed]

You know why. Although it would be useful for Labour supporters who refuse to believe their own party is anti-Semitic. Now apparently, the term will cover Muslims. Which is interesting... Because Semitism was born waaaaaay before Islam. Islam is less than 2000 years old and Judaism over 5000 years old. But hey, if it suits your particular agenda, then go for it.

Apparently were were not well taught about this in school.

http://www.waupun.k12.wi.us/Policy/other/dickhut/religions/04%20Semitic%20Religions.html

When we speak about the Semitic religions, we are referring to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The word Semitic describes the people who came from the Middle East and their languages. Arabs and Jews are both Semitic. Christianity is a Semitic religion because it originated in the Middle East.

[Oliver_W]

Even if it was, would the Jewish people of deserved what happened to them. The answer is a clear 'NO'.

Of course not, but bringing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis into discussions about muslims in the modern world is just ... ill.

[Brillopad]

I'm not talking about what the Nazis did to the Jewish people. I was talking about the rise of the Nazi party before the holocaust began. I was talking about how Jewish people were demonized and subjugated, not only by the rising Nazi party but by the German people.

But as far as I am aware the Jewish people didn’t have factions preaching hate and violence against them. They didn’t have millions pouring into their country and refusing to integrate into their way of life. Jewish people integrated well whilst still having their own religion and culture. They learned the language and were not trying to tell others how to live. They were generally very productive to the economy for example.

Many see a significant difference.

[The Slim Reaper]

An couple of examples. Before WW2 and as the Nazi party were forming, a general distaste for Jewish people started to spread throughout Germany. This of course was prompted through propaganda media channels and radio. Was there a stirring of anti-semitism and if not why not?

More recently we've been the spectators of war in the Middle East by both tribal natives and the West. We then started to see terrorist attacks on our own shores and suddenly we were all talking about Muslims. Every day for years we have had something in one paper or other condemning the Islamic faith and on every political forum we've had many debates about the sinfulness of Islam. Is that a stirring up of anti-semitism? and if not why not?

To be fair, attacks on the Jewish folks had been going on for centuries prior to the uprising of the Nazi party. Jews were primarily blamed for the killing of the jesus, which bred mistrust and led to lies such of blood libel (the murdering of Christian children for their blood) being laid against them.

The nazi's just made it a policy, but the resentment and mistrust of Jews had been built up by the catholic church in the middle ages.

[DemolitionRed]

I deliberately brought in the discussion prior to the Holocaust. I lost relatives in the Holocaust or at least my husband did. The Holocaust is a whole other tragedy.

[DemolitionRed]

But as far as I am aware the Jewish people didn’t have factions preaching hate and violence against them. They didn’t have millions pouring into their country and refusing to integrate into their way of life. Jewish people integrated well whilst still having their own religion and culture. They learned the language and were not trying to tell others how to live. They were generally very productive to the economy for example.

Many see a significant difference.

Neither do most Muslim families.

[DemolitionRed]

There is no doubt that there are little pockets of evil Muslims but they don't represent all. The constant threads about Muslims does represent them all. They have now, by some on here, all been bunched together in a joint evil.

[DemolitionRed]

To be fair, attacks on the Jewish folks had been going on for centuries prior to the uprising of the Nazi party. Jews were primarily blamed for the killing of the jesus, which bred mistrust and led to lies such of blood libel (the murdering of Christian children for their blood) being laid against them.

The nazi's just made it a policy, but the resentment and mistrust of Jews had been built up by the catholic church in the middle ages.

That's true, they have spent centuries being demonized by different faiths and they still got demonized when they escaped Nazi occupation and came to places like the UK. We were very cruel to the escaping Jewish people. Most Jews arriving here, including my farther-in-law (as a small child) had to change their name and were advised not to let neighbors know they were Jewish. The Daily Mail put out daily propaganda about how the Jewish men were raping our women and kidnapping our children. English people were encouraged to fear the incoming Jews and that to me, feels very similar to what the Daily Mail is doing today. Different religion, same propaganda.

[Withano]

What is this new and interesting use of the phrase anti-Semitism?

(People didn't like islamophobia and decided this was a better way to describe their views last week :whistle:)

[Brillopad]

Neither do most Muslim families.

I meant the Nazis didn’t have Jewish factions preaching hate and death etc against them in the way that those threatening Britain @nd the rest of Europe today are Muslim. Your interpretation makes no sense.

[Brillopad]

(People didn't like islamophobia and decided this was a better way to describe their views last week :whistle:)

Phobias don’t usually have any solid foundations and are based on an irrational fear. The criticism of Islam and it’s treatment of Women is very rational.

You also can’t just make up any old ‘phobia’ word to try and shut down criticism and expect people to blindly accept it. Antisemitism is at least a real word. :rolleyes:

[DemolitionRed]

I meant the Nazis didn’t have Jewish factions preaching hate and death etc against them in the way that those threatening Britain @nd the rest of Europe today are Muslim. Your interpretation makes no sense.

But that's only a small pocket of Muslims, not Muslims as a whole. Muslim as a whole are not threatening Britain or Europe but when you read snippets of the Daily Mail you could easily believe its all Muslims.

[DemolitionRed]

Phobias don’t usually have any solid foundations and are based on an irrational fear. The criticism of Islam and it’s treatment of Women is very rational.

You also can’t just make up any old ‘phobia’ word to try and shut down criticism and expect people to blindly accept it. Antisemitism is at least a real word. :rolleyes:

So why didn't people widely talk about this before these wars began?

Its like any ammunition to spread the hate is a good thing... at least for some.

[Withano]

Phobias don’t usually have any solid foundations and are based on an irrational fear. The criticism of Islam and it’s treatment of Women is very rational.

You also can’t just make up any old ‘phobia’ word to try and shut down criticism and expect people to blindly accept it. Antisemitism is at least a real word. :rolleyes:

See, Livia. Told you. I think it's pretty silly too tbh.

[Brillopad]

But that's only a small pocket of Muslims, not Muslims as a whole. Muslim as a whole are not threatening Britain or Europe but when you read snippets of the Daily Mail you could easily believe its all Muslims.

I see you have resorted to the old DM put downs when I rarely read the DM, certainly no more than any other newspaper as can be seen from the variety of sources I have provided in the past. Weak.

You say it’s small but many are not convinced. The Muslim religion is the most controversial religion for good reason - it is the one most at war with so many countries and other religions and the one causing friction and spouting hate in Britain. That kind of hate breeds mistrust. It is the one causing the most problems in the world @nd the one we see covering women from head to toe and stoning them to death for next to nothing ...

Young Muslim men born and bred in Europe are risking their lives to fight for a religion against the country they were born in and bombing the countries that gave them and their parents more freedoms and choice. It is an obsessive religion - very like a cult. It isn’t healthy in the opinion of many. Sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you but that is what many see because that is what is happening.

[Livia]

Oh please don't fake outrage Livia. I didn't for a single moment compare it with the Holocaust.

You're mistaking outrage for amusement at you comparing the Jews' persecution with the Muslims' persecution. The vast majority of Muslims who are persecuted are persecuted by other Muslims.


(People didn't like islamophobia and decided this was a better way to describe their views last week :whistle:)

I an understand why. They've taken literally an archaic explanation of the term. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Livia]

So why didn't people widely talk about this before these wars began?

Its like any ammunition to spread the hate is a good thing... at least for some.

They did talk about it. Everyone knows about Islam's treatment of women, FGM etc. If you think people are now using that knowledge as a new stick with which to beat Muslims, you're really wide of the mark. You lived in Iran didn't you? You can't be ignorant of the fact that people in the West have been fighting for women's rights in the Middle East for aaaaaaaaaages.

And again.... most hate for Muslims comes from other Muslims.

[Livia]

See, Livia. Told you. I think it's pretty silly too tbh.

Well they should choose another word or risk looking ill-informed.

[Withano]

Well they should choose another word or risk looking ill-informed.

I agree, to put it simply; anti-sematic is commonly used to describe anti-jewish stances, and islamophobic is commonly used to describe anti-muslim stances - and that doesnt really need changing. Both words work fine when used for these reasons.

Bit confused as to why some would rather their posts be described as anti-sematic than islamophobic too - but thats the reason you're seeig the phrase now. Someone decided last week that they didnt like to be called islamophobic on tibb, and then a few mutually agreed that anti-sematic could work.

[Brillopad]

I agree, to put it simply; anti-sematic is commonly used to describe anti-jewish stances, and islamophobic is commonly used to describe anti-muslim stances - and that doesnt really need changing. Both words work fine when used for these reasons.

Bit confused as to why some would rather their posts be described as anti-sematic than islamophobic too - but thats the reason you're seeig the phrase now. Someone decided last week that they didnt like to be called islamophobic on tibb, and then a few mutually agreed that anti-sematic could work.

I might be wrong but I think you have taken Liva’s words the wrong way. I don’t think she is agreeing that the disapproval of the word Islamophobia is a negative thing.

[Withano]

I might be wrong but I think you have taken Liva’s words the wrong way. I don’t think she is agreeing that the disapproval of the word Islamophobia is a negative thing.

Just stop saying islamophobic things if you dont want your posts described that way :shrug: i wont be calling them anti-sematic or any other word because you requested so, sorry.

[Brillopad]

Just stop saying islamophobic things if you dont want your posts described that way :shrug: i wont be calling them anti-sematic or any other word because you requested so, sorry.

I won’t recognise your criticism of my opinions or give them any credence and may respond with my own made-up word if necessary - what is fine for you is fine for me.

[Withano]

I won’t recognise your criticism of my opinions or give them any credence and may respond with my own made-up word if necessary - what is fine for you is fine for me.

Slightly offtopic, but you know its a dictionary-recognised word, right? Has been for years. Besides, I dont think I've described any posts that way for months? I honestly do try to avoid your 'I hate everyone who isnt me' threads.

[Brillopad]

Slightly offtopic, but you know its a dictionary-recognised word, right? Has been for years. Besides, I dont think I've described any posts that way for months? I honestly do try to avoid your 'I hate everyone who isnt me' threads.

You could have fooled me. You don’t seem to be able to keep away from my posts. And you can make nasty character aspersions like that but that is at best your opinion and/or childish baiting. I can safely say I pretty much hate terrorists that intentionally kill people, don’t you, and I don’t have any time for anyone who either supports them or makes excuses for them.