[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

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?

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Withano

PMSL

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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 )

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.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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-mu...-of-time-82957

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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!