France - Machine Gun attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll just go back to reading elsewhere now. Mod can delete. I thought there was some discussion as to folks not conforming to Western ways. It was merely a small example. IMO.
 
This is a complete nonsense statement. Quite apart from being ethically unsupportable, its sheer nonsense because Islam is a religion - people can convert to it, so kicking "them" all out wouldn't even work.

Thank you Cappuccino. I just couldn't find the words.
 
I actually think the banning of 'full face covering' in France was a mistake, no doubt there are Muslim women there now who simply never leave the house. I do understand why it might not be appropriate for some spaces however, like banks, or other areas where it is important for people to be identified.

To put this into perspective for everyone. Studies concluded that there were only less than 2000 women in the whole of France wearing the niqab or the burka, most wearing headscarves, the hijab or no headdress. The number wearing full face covering showing only the eyes or not showing the eyes (burka) was 0.03% of muslim women in France. This law also banned masks, helmets and balaclavas in public such as streets, parks, shops, museums, public transport. Covering the face fully prevents identification of a person, which is seen as a security risk, and it's a social issue in a society where communication and facial expression are relied on. People can be afraid and confused faced with someone who is fully veiled revealing only the eyes, or worse bars over the eyes.
I realise this can be seen as unfairly discriminating against Muslim women and encroaching on human rights but what needs to be understood is that France is extremely secular. There is no allusion to god or religion in public places. Since 2004 conspicuous religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Jewish caps cannot be worn in schools or in courts. There was mixed reaction in France about this law and at the time outspoken Muslim women scholars spoke out in favour of the ban. But in a secular country like France full facial covering cannot work. You can't have someone in a shop wearing one of the two dresses in the middle of the attached photo. It's true that hidden behind the passing of this law is not only the idea that everyone should conform to French values of secularism but also the perception that women are oppressed wearing these full veils and someone is making them do it, even if they don't think so themselves, and I have to admit I am one of those who feel that way too. I have nothing against the headscarf and hijab which I find beautiful - it's the niqab and burka that disturb me to be honest, just like balaclavas!

Has anyone here seen women in burkas in public in their country who were residents, not tourists? How did you feel?
 

Attachments

  • burka-niqab-hidschab-tschador1.jpg
    burka-niqab-hidschab-tschador1.jpg
    70.1 KB · Views: 62
Can anyone explain to me why the radical Muslims choose to immigrate to any country that they consider so offensive? I can honestly say that I don't hate any country, race, or religion. I am a very tolerant person. That being said, I would not choose to live in a country like Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. Their primitive views toward women, if nothing else, would offend me. Everyone needs to live in an environment that is compatible with their social & religious beliefs. Individuals cannot or should not expect any country anywhere in the world to conform to their specific wishes. That attitude is nothing more than totally insanity.

Apparently, Morocco & Turkey have few if any problems of "infidels" living among them. I've only visited there briefly but there is a very large Roman Catholic church in Casablanca & many Eastern Orthodox churches in Turkey. There are even Palestinian Christians living peacefully in Bethlehem. Then there's Jerusalem..........Christian of various denominations, Jewish, & Muslim, but the only ones causing trouble are the Muslims. What is their problem????????
 
Can anyone explain to me why the radical Muslims choose to immigrate to any country that they consider so offensive? I can honestly say that I don't hate any country, race, or religion. I am a very tolerant person. That being said, I would not choose to live in a country like Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. Their primitive views toward women, if nothing else, would offend me. Everyone needs to live in an environment that is compatible with their social & religious beliefs. Individuals cannot or should not expect any country anywhere in the world to conform to their specific wishes. That attitude is nothing more than totally insanity.

Apparently, Morocco & Turkey have few if any problems of "infidels" living among them. I've only visited there briefly but there is a very large Roman Catholic church in Casablanca & many Eastern Orthodox churches in Turkey. There are even Palestinian Christians living peacefully in Bethlehem. Then there's Jerusalem..........Christian of various denominations, Jewish, & Muslim, but the only ones causing trouble are the Muslims. What is their problem????????

I've often asked myself why as an immigrant you wouldn't understand you'd be expected to abide by the values of the country. New Zealand made a mistake after the end of apartheid letting everyone in in the spirit of the welcoming country it has always been without realising it was letting in supporters of apartheid -escaping from South Africa in search of a country where they could live a same life of white privilege- who were going around spreading propaganda on their streets until it was reaslied what was happening.

But bear in mind it was most often the parents and grandparents who were moderate muslims who migrated in search of a better life and its was their children and grandchildren, second and third generations becoming radicalised. Look at all the young kids from the UK, France, Germany, Austria and even the US who have been in the news for running away and joining ISIS. They were born in the country they left from!
 
To put this into perspective for everyone. Studies concluded that there were only less than 2000 women in the whole of France wearing the niqab or the burka, most wearing headscarves, the hijab or no headdress. The number wearing full face covering showing only the eyes or not showing the eyes (burka) was 0.03% of muslim women in France. This law also banned masks, helmets and balaclavas in public such as streets, parks, shops, museums, public transport. Covering the face fully prevents identification of a person, which is seen as a security risk, and it's a social issue in a society where communication and facial expression are relied on. People can be afraid and confused faced with someone who is fully veiled revealing only the eyes, or worse bars over the eyes.
I realise this can be seen as unfairly discriminating against Muslim women and encroaching on human rights but what needs to be understood is that France is extremely secular. There is no allusion to god or religion in public places. Since 2004 conspicuous religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Jewish caps cannot be worn in schools or in courts. There was mixed reaction in France about this law and at the time outspoken Muslim women scholars spoke out in favour of the ban. But in a secular country like France full facial covering cannot work. You can't have someone in a shop wearing one of the two dresses in the middle of the attached photo. It's true that hidden behind the passing of this law is not only the idea that everyone should conform to French values of secularism but also the perception that women are oppressed wearing these full veils and someone is making them do it, even if they don't think so themselves, and I have to admit I am one of those who feel that way too. I have nothing against the headscarf and hijab which I find beautiful - it's the niqab and burka that disturb me to be honest, just like balaclavas!

Has anyone here seen women in burkas in public in their country who were residents, not tourists? How did you feel?

Yes, we had a similar debate here, and ended up banning the full face coverings in parliament, but lifted that almost as soon as it was put in place: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-house-burqa-ban-dumped-20141019-118j5h.html Being an atheist I absolutely love the idea that religious symbols can't be worn in some places, but I really do think that if a muslim woman chooses to wear the burqa it is her right to do so. Yes we have women in burqas here too, personally I find it confronting, but I do understand that under all that covering is a normal woman, and I would hate to think that women who are comfortable only wearing one in public would now not even go out to the shops because her adopted country wont allow it.
 
To put this into perspective for everyone. Studies concluded that there were only less than 2000 women in the whole of France wearing the niqab or the burka, most wearing headscarves, the hijab or no headdress. The number wearing full face covering showing only the eyes or not showing the eyes (burka) was 0.03% of muslim women in France. This law also banned masks, helmets and balaclavas in public such as streets, parks, shops, museums, public transport. Covering the face fully prevents identification of a person, which is seen as a security risk, and it's a social issue in a society where communication and facial expression are relied on. People can be afraid and confused faced with someone who is fully veiled revealing only the eyes, or worse bars over the eyes.
I realise this can be seen as unfairly discriminating against Muslim women and encroaching on human rights but what needs to be understood is that France is extremely secular. There is no allusion to god or religion in public places. Since 2004 conspicuous religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Jewish caps cannot be worn in schools or in courts. There was mixed reaction in France about this law and at the time outspoken Muslim women scholars spoke out in favour of the ban. But in a secular country like France full facial covering cannot work. You can't have someone in a shop wearing one of the two dresses in the middle of the attached photo. It's true that hidden behind the passing of this law is not only the idea that everyone should conform to French values of secularism but also the perception that women are oppressed wearing these full veils and someone is making them do it, even if they don't think so themselves, and I have to admit I am one of those who feel that way too. I have nothing against the headscarf and hijab which I find beautiful - it's the niqab and burka that disturb me to be honest, just like balaclavas!

Has anyone here seen women in burkas in public in their country who were residents, not tourists? How did you feel?

I saw one person in rural Va walking down a some what rural rd, in a black burka, haven't seen one since. This was over a year ago. Weird because no one walks in that area, and there was no broken down vehicle, so cross that out. jmo
 
Can anyone explain to me why the radical Muslims choose to immigrate to any country that they consider so offensive? I can honestly say that I don't hate any country, race, or religion. I am a very tolerant person. That being said, I would not choose to live in a country like Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. Their primitive views toward women, if nothing else, would offend me. Everyone needs to live in an environment that is compatible with their social & religious beliefs. Individuals cannot or should not expect any country anywhere in the world to conform to their specific wishes. That attitude is nothing more than totally insanity.

Apparently, Morocco & Turkey have few if any problems of "infidels" living among them. I've only visited there briefly but there is a very large Roman Catholic church in Casablanca & many Eastern Orthodox churches in Turkey. There are even Palestinian Christians living peacefully in Bethlehem. Then there's Jerusalem..........Christian of various denominations, Jewish, & Muslim, but the only ones causing trouble are the Muslims. What is their problem????????

bbm Apparently anything non-muslim. jmo
 
Some observations: Those indoctrinated in this nihilistic ideology of hate, blame, setting themselves apart from their own families and communities, follow the example of the OBL compound if you will, for their most operational groups, it seems to me, from the way these idiot gunmen in Paris functioned. Familial units, two or three of them, end up living in their own little world, covering each others backs, it would seem. The wives will be the public liaisons at times, it would seem. Going to the doctor will often be almost the only intimate public contact so they try hard to stick within network, it would seem. The idiot terrorists in Paris were orphans, except for the one who got away (Dad alive but estranged), so expendable, it would seem, without blow back to relations, or a broader network, it would seem. That stands out. Could the people running them be a somewhat more identifiable and connected network avoiding the heat by using miscreants who have managed to stay under the radar? Interesting that the wife left behind, the only visible person from their group, is very pregnant and in complete denial of any knowledge.
 
SWARM CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JIHADIST MOVEMENT


Jihadism on the Rise in Europe: The Dutch Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6qHu2idhPg&feature=youtu.be#t=0m00s


On December 4, Rob Bertholee, the director-general of the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), addressed a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute to discuss the "sudden and explosive renewal" of jihadism in the Netherlands.

This is a lengthy video of mainly one man with a rather flat voice and no slides or pictures.
It takes some effort listening to as if it were radio, but if you want in-depht information on Jihadist in Europe, this is well worth the while.
And it is SHOCKING.

"They are as Dutch as wooden shoes (living here since the sixteenth century) and yet they radicalize."

The problems that European countries face with regard to safety, to democracy are even more ominious that I expected, and I am no optimist.

"It is not only those who go to Syria, it is also the ones who stay at home."

"There is not one thing you can do to prevent people from radicalizing."


BBM
 
Yes, we had a similar debate here, and ended up banning the full face coverings in parliament, but lifted that almost as soon as it was put in place: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-house-burqa-ban-dumped-20141019-118j5h.html Being an atheist I absolutely love the idea that religious symbols can't be worn in some places, but I really do think that if a muslim woman chooses to wear the burqa it is her right to do so. Yes we have women in burqas here too, personally I find it confronting, but I do understand that under all that covering is a normal woman, and I would hate to think that women who are comfortable only wearing one in public would now not even go out to the shops because her adopted country wont allow it.

I understand what you're saying. I've spoken at length to Kiwi and Aussie friends about this who feel very much like you that it's an infringement on these women's rights and that they cannot go about their lives as they wish to be. I realise it's drastic but this law is something that has always felt instinctively right to me. I can't help seeing this not only as a religious symbol, as a fellow atheist, but also as an antiquated oppression of women, having to hide like that, that women do not have a face in society, and should not be seen or heard. If the men wore them too I'd feel different! Maybe I'm French after all :)

ETA: and it is something that remains extremely rare according to the statistic of it being 0.03% of Muslim women in France, I don't know if the figure can be relied on or not but it's a factor.
 
Some observations: The westerners indoctrinated in this nihilistic ideology of hate, blame, setting themselves apart from their own families and communities, follow the example of the OBL compound if you will, for their most operational groups, it seems to me, from the way these idiot gunmen in Paris functioned. Familial units, two or three of them, end up living in their own little world, covering each others backs, it would seem. The wives will be the public liaisons at times, it would seem. Going to the doctor will often be almost the only intimate public contact so they try hard to stick within network, it would seem. The idiot terrorists in Paris were orphans, except for the one who got away (Dad alive but estranged), so expendable, it would seem, without blow back to relations, or a broader network, it would seem. That stands out. Could the people running them be a somewhat more identifiable and connected network avoiding the heat by using miscreants who have managed to stay under the radar? Interesting that the wife left behind, the only visible person from their group, is very pregnant and in complete denial of any knowledge.

Good post, I think you're right, I think they fit the ideal profile for those behind this.
But then this Coulibaly guy, 9 sisters!
 
I understand what you're saying. I've spoken at length to Kiwi and Aussie friends about this who feel very much like you that it's an infringement on these women's rights and that they cannot go about their lives as they wish to be. I realise it's drastic but this law is something that has always felt instinctively right to me. I can't help seeing this not only as a religious symbol, as a fellow atheist, but also as an antiquated oppression of women, having to hide like that, that women do not have a face in society, and should not be seen or heard. If the men wore them too I'd feel different! Maybe I'm French after all :)

I feel it is a form of oppression as well. It is like blaming women for the failures of the men to be able to resist seeing them as sexual objects.

from wiki:



A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the Saudi Arabian website IslamQA.info, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman's face is 'awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest 'awrah of a woman.[6]




So because looking at a woman's beauty is 'tempting' then it follows that the WOMAN must walk around covered fully? Maybe the men should cover their eyes, not the women. :slap:
 
Agree about the sexism aspect, like seriously that almost makes other women free game, it's not a very appealing religion is it?
 
I will just say that I am more offended by the flogging of a blogger every week for twenty weeks than the proper use of English words to describe food and the animals they derive from that are part of the majority's diet.
I am more offended by the stoning of a 13 year old girl for the crime of being raped than the picture of a pig.
I am more offended by the use of a 10 year old girl as a murderer than the word bacon.

I find OUP's smarmy appeasement of the lunatic fringe to be utter cowardice.

Smarmy appeasement of the lunatic fringe.

Love it :bowdown:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
2,673
Total visitors
2,741

Forum statistics

Threads
599,923
Messages
18,101,646
Members
230,955
Latest member
ClueCrusader
Back
Top