Conquer Club

Well, how are they supposed to exercise wearing that garment?

Vote for kittens!

bedub1 wrote:. If they want to wear it in their house, that's fine.

You're an idiot - This completely defeats the purpose of the hijab/veil - They don't need to wear it in their house because the only males in their house would be their husbans/fathers/brothers - The reason they wear the burqa in public is to avoid the gaze of other men's eyes.

Sure, it's completely patriarchal - but people seem to ignore (or forget) the fact that all societies are still patriarchal (including our own)-

Islam warns of the dangers of public seduction - That's why women wear the coverings, to avoid public seduction. Catholic nuns wear habits, look back only 150 years and women of Christian faith wore head coverings and scarves - This would have been for the same reasons.

Just because we now live in a society whose economic imperative it soley based on seduction doesn't mean that we should force everyone else to participate.

bedub1 wrote:I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

f*ck off - We are not talking about human sacrifices - We're talking about an item of clothing.

"FREEDOM FOR ALL - ASLONG AS YOU DO EVERYTHING EXACTLY HOW WE WANT YOU TO DO THINGS!"

radiojake wrote: f*ck off - We are not talking about human sacrifices - We're talking about an item of clothing.

"FREEDOM FOR ALL - ASLONG AS YOU DO EVERYTHING EXACTLY HOW WE WANT YOU TO DO THINGS!"

You can't go around with a ski mask on. Doesn't matter if it's "religious" based....

The 1st amendment talks about religion, but the constitution talks about security for all. Covering your entire face goes against the concepts of photo ID, identifying people who rob people, covering bodies so they can suicide bomb people, etc etc etc. People who wear masks CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

You be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Going around fully covered so you can't be identified goes against the founding principles of this country. Your religion comes 2nd to this.

We don't all live in the USA

radiojake wrote:We don't all live in the USA

I'm not familiar with France's constitution.

What takes priority in Australia? One groups religious ideas, or everybody's security and well being?

bedub1 wrote:

radiojake wrote:We don't all live in the USA

I'm not familiar with France's constitution.

What takes priority in Australia? One groups religious ideas, or everybody's security and well being?

I don't consider a women wearing a veil to be a security threat - I am not a moron duped by mainstream bigotry

radiojake wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

radiojake wrote:We don't all live in the USA

I'm not familiar with France's constitution.

What takes priority in Australia? One groups religious ideas, or everybody's security and well being?

I don't consider a women wearing a veil to be a security threat - I am not a moron duped by mainstream bigotry

Are you calling me a moron?

Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repel ... 44595.html

Let me know the next time somebody is attacked by a nude suicide bomber...

bedub1 wrote:

Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repel ... 44595.html

Let me know the next time somebody is attacked by a nude suicide bomber...

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists would have been wearing burqas when they boardedthe planes. Oh wait, I'm sure they would have worn Western styled suits. The item of clothing has nothing to do with the intent - If someone is hell bent on blowing themselves up, they will find a way regardless of the clothing available.

notyou2 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I believe they are preparing to do the same thing in Quebec but I could be wrong.

I doubt it not at all. They already banned Sikhs from wearing the kirpan on the specious "public safety" argument. Montreal has become as notorious as Sun City, South Africa.

Telling people they can't wear something is no different than telling people they have to wear something (e.g. the Dutch requiring Jews to wear yellow stars or El Capitan Beach here in Santa Barbara requiring ol' Saxi wear a bathing suit even if it means tan lines).

Saxi, much as I love you and your posts and your communist attitudes, and look up to you as a father figure, please stay out of Canadian politics until you admit that you are actually a Canadian, or at least a wannabe.

EXCUSE ME.

I happen to know a lot about keeping an exotic saltwater aquarium as well. That doesn't mean I'm a Pink Skunk Clownfish.

radiojake wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repel ... 44595.html

Let me know the next time somebody is attacked by a nude suicide bomber...

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists would have been wearing burqas when they boardedthe planes. Oh wait, I'm sure they would have worn Western styled suits. The item of clothing has nothing to do with the intent - If someone is hell bent on blowing themselves up, they will find a way regardless of the clothing available.

The hijackers didn't have bombs on themselves...they had box cutters. If you are trying to conceal a body covered with bombs...you don't wear a skinny jeans...you wear a burqa to cover up the explosives. It also helps to pretend you are a woman, because we naturally don't think of woman as weapons whereas men are combatants.... Men don't wear Burqa's....women do. Read the article. It's happened more than once. They do it for a reason. People will exploit this too....criminals will ear Burqa's as a disguise to rob a place....and then ditch the "costume". If we have to allow the costume all the time, and can't object because of religious sensibilities...it makes the perfect cover. Whats the description you give the cops...."sneakers and blue eyes"?

Just like I think walking around in a KKK uniform is a terrible idea and should be illegal, just like no ski masks, no hoodies in 711's...the same with the Burqa.

bedub1 wrote:

radiojake wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repel ... 44595.html

Let me know the next time somebody is attacked by a nude suicide bomber...

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists would have been wearing burqas when they boardedthe planes. Oh wait, I'm sure they would have worn Western styled suits. The item of clothing has nothing to do with the intent - If someone is hell bent on blowing themselves up, they will find a way regardless of the clothing available.

The hijackers didn't have bombs on themselves...they had box cutters. If you are trying to conceal a body covered with bombs...you don't wear a skinny jeans...you wear a burqa to cover up the explosives. It also helps to pretend you are a woman, because we naturally don't think of woman as weapons whereas men are combatants.... Men don't wear Burqa's....women do. Read the article. It's happened more than once. They do it for a reason. People will exploit this too....criminals will ear Burqa's as a disguise to rob a place....and then ditch the "costume". If we have to allow the costume all the time, and can't object because of religious sensibilities...it makes the perfect cover. Whats the description you give the cops...."sneakers and blue eyes"?

Just like I think walking around in a KKK uniform is a terrible idea and should be illegal, just like no ski masks, no hoodies in 711's...the same with the Burqa.

My point is that banning the clothing wont stop people carrying out suicide missions - People still wear balaclavas when they go and rob a bank -

The French are not even banning the burqa under the guise of security, they are banning it under their notion of laïcité - or secularism - and their retarded conception of 'sameness' rather than 'equality' - The French are 'equal' as long as they are the 'same' - That's why, to them, the Burqa is considered a threat - (and this is before we get onto conceptions of how women are valued in a western culture, which I have already menioned in this thread)

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

I'm ashamed of you people. Not one post on how to solve the problem. It's all bickering back and forth about personal freedom and security.

What is needed is compromise. Mostly on the part of the Islamic community. The large majority of them are not terrorists. As the saying goes though, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. There are other methods of identification. Methods that would not violate their religious practices. The first idea that pops into my head is a serial number sown into their burqas. They register with the state/national government who will have their number and fingerprint on file. Soon everyone who isn't wearing a number would be viewed as suspicious and with good reason too. Society will have an easy way to identify the "good" women from the "bad". There are a few ethical problems with this. One glaring one is that by numbering them you are dehumanizing them. So improve, expand, invent. We have a problem. Is there a way we fix it within the set parameters or do we really have to go to such an extreme?

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

I'm ashamed of you people. Not one post on how to solve the problem. It's all bickering back and forth about personal freedom and security.

What is needed is compromise. Mostly on the part of the Islamic community. The large majority of them are not terrorists. As the saying goes though, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. There are other methods of identification. Methods that would not violate their religious practices. The first idea that pops into my head is a serial number sown into their burqas. They register with the state/national government who will have their number and fingerprint on file. Soon everyone who isn't wearing a number would be viewed as suspicious and with good reason too. Society will have an easy way to identify the "good" women from the "bad". There are a few ethical problems with this. One glaring one is that by numbering them you are dehumanizing them. So improve, expand, invent. We have a problem. Is there a way we fix it within the set parameters or do we really have to go to such an extreme?

So all Muslims should now be registered like cattle?

*Mod floats in* Oh and lets play nice here boys and girls. This almost turned into a flamefest and could again.*mod floats out*

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

I'm ashamed of you people. Not one post on how to solve the problem. It's all bickering back and forth about personal freedom and security.

Be ashamed of yourself. That very post you responded to here DOES have a way to solve the problem.

TheSaxlad wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

I'm ashamed of you people. Not one post on how to solve the problem. It's all bickering back and forth about personal freedom and security.

What is needed is compromise. Mostly on the part of the Islamic community. The large majority of them are not terrorists. As the saying goes though, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. There are other methods of identification. Methods that would not violate their religious practices. The first idea that pops into my head is a serial number sown into their burqas. They register with the state/national government who will have their number and fingerprint on file. Soon everyone who isn't wearing a number would be viewed as suspicious and with good reason too. Society will have an easy way to identify the "good" women from the "bad". There are a few ethical problems with this. One glaring one is that by numbering them you are dehumanizing them. So improve, expand, invent. We have a problem. Is there a way we fix it within the set parameters or do we really have to go to such an extreme?

So all Muslims should now be registered like cattle?

*Mod floats in* Oh and lets play nice here boys and girls. This almost turned into a flamefest and could again.*mod floats out*

That's not what I said. My suggestion only applies to burqas and I already stated that there's are ethical problems with this suggestion. I am trying to get some constructive discussion started. If no one wants to read what I actually said that's not my fault. Contribute something instead of trolling the creative and constructive discussion mod.

We already register people like cattle anyways. We have social security numbers and file fingerprints in America. Our courts place some value on visual identification. How do you identify IRL anon's? Giving them tripcodes is an good start (4chan's identification solution).

@Woodruff: That is a solution that very few burqa wearer's would agree to. I'm sorry for missing that suggestion. They are wearing the burqa so they won't expose themselves. If they expose themselves at all then they have compromised themselves.

If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.....just so we all feel safe.


And saxi? Salt Water Aquariums: pics or gtfo.

JR

Johnny Rockets wrote:If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.....just so we all feel safe.


And saxi? Salt Water Aquariums: pics or gtfo.

JR

I'm on the side of not banning them, but to be fair, the common person doesn't see someone wearing a habit as a threat. However, if the average person sees someone walking around with a burqa, due to media, etc, it's something that would raise suspicion.

-rd

Johnny Rockets wrote:If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.....just so we all feel safe.


And saxi? Salt Water Aquariums: pics or gtfo.

JR

The nun's habit's don't cover their faces.

Putting numbers on burqa's is silly...i'll just go borrow one and pretend i'm somebody I'm not.

Allowing people to expose themselves in a semi-private way for identification is obviously required for police, TSA etc. Do you think they will do that just to go into a store? When they write a check they will have to take it off again, or use a credit card etc.

What about driving? can you even see out of those things properly?

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.

I think my personal security trumps your religious faith. IE....you can't offer human sacrifices even if it is part of your "religion"

That's a hell of a leap, going from someone's clothing to human sacrifice.

As far as your "personal security" is concerned, you don't seem to have responded to the point I made regarding the following:

Woodruff wrote:

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

What I would consider "reasonable" for this sort of a situation would be to have some way for them to expose their face to a camera in a reasonably private area, and then they could re-cover themselves as they shopped.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

Same as above.

I'm ashamed of you people. Not one post on how to solve the problem. It's all bickering back and forth about personal freedom and security.

What is needed is compromise. Mostly on the part of the Islamic community. The large majority of them are not terrorists. As the saying goes though, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. There are other methods of identification. Methods that would not violate their religious practices. The first idea that pops into my head is a serial number sown into their burqas. They register with the state/national government who will have their number and fingerprint on file. Soon everyone who isn't wearing a number would be viewed as suspicious and with good reason too. Society will have an easy way to identify the "good" women from the "bad". There are a few ethical problems with this. One glaring one is that by numbering them you are dehumanizing them. So improve, expand, invent. We have a problem. Is there a way we fix it within the set parameters or do we really have to go to such an extreme?

You say that "We have a problem", but I'm not really all that clear on what you think the problem is. You seem to be making a link between terrorism and wearing a burqa, which is pretty tenuous, but then again you didn't really explain.

If your problem is that a suicide bomber could conceal a bomb beneath a burqa, then shouldn't we also ban backpacks (used by the London suicide bombers), or indeed any form of loose clothing?

If the issue is that people can't be easily identified, then that's quite different and there's no need to throw in the fear-mongering.

Woody offers a completely reasonable solution- it's the one that is employed in airports every day. I don't see the need for it to be employed in too many other places except when proof of identity is required.

But anyway- please expand on what you consider the problem to be. I'll also just echo the point that France did not ban the burqa for security issues, or at least that was not the primary reason (I'm sure security concerns turned up in debates about the decision). It was considered un-French and antithetical to French values. Lurking beneath much of the criticism of Islam in the west is a similar sentiment- Un-American, Un-British, etc.

bedub1 wrote:

radiojake wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repel ... 44595.html

Let me know the next time somebody is attacked by a nude suicide bomber...

I'm sure the 9/11 terrorists would have been wearing burqas when they boardedthe planes. Oh wait, I'm sure they would have worn Western styled suits. The item of clothing has nothing to do with the intent - If someone is hell bent on blowing themselves up, they will find a way regardless of the clothing available.

The hijackers didn't have bombs on themselves...they had box cutters. If you are trying to conceal a body covered with bombs...you don't wear a skinny jeans...you wear a burqa to cover up the explosives. It also helps to pretend you are a woman, because we naturally don't think of woman as weapons whereas men are combatants.... Men don't wear Burqa's....women do. Read the article. It's happened more than once. They do it for a reason. People will exploit this too....criminals will ear Burqa's as a disguise to rob a place....and then ditch the "costume". If we have to allow the costume all the time, and can't object because of religious sensibilities...it makes the perfect cover. Whats the description you give the cops...."sneakers and blue eyes"?

Just like I think walking around in a KKK uniform is a terrible idea and should be illegal, just like no ski masks, no hoodies in 711's...the same with the Burqa.

I don't think the article you posted is saying a lot of the things you seem to be claiming. First of all, it makes no mention of whether or not the bombers were men or women. Secondly, it doesn't say that it's happened more than once. It says that attacks have hit the base more than once, but makes no mention of burqa-clad suicide bombings being part of those attacks.

As for your other points- there's a lot of speculation, and a few more incorrect assumptions. First of all, it's perfectly possible to wear skinny jeans and a burqa. They're not naked underneath it. Just sayin'.

Secondly, it's completely wrong to say that if you want to conceal explosives you wear a burqa. There are any number of ways to conceal explosives. The London bombers used backpacks, which I note you are not calling for to be banned.

Thirdly, there are many many ways to conceal your identity, and it's perfectly legal to disguise yourself as a woman, or even simply to dress as one as a preference in public. Banning men from wearing women's clothing just doesn't fly. Banning fake mustaches and coloured contact lenses also seems to be pretty poor.

sheepofdumb wrote:@Woodruff: That is a solution that very few burqa wearer's would agree to.

Do you believe so? I absolutely do not. Compromise is necessary in this situation and any reasonable Muslim would recognize the need to expose their face to a camera for a very limited amount of time before re-covering themselves.

sheepofdumb wrote:They are wearing the burqa so they won't expose themselves. If they expose themselves at all then they have compromised themselves.

So what you're saying is that the Muslims should not have any part of compromise and that the only compromise MUST come from the rest of us? And you see that as reasonable...why?

a real quick google search provided the following:

Four burka bombers - 4/2/2011
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... an-capital

2 burqa bombers - 4/17/2010
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2010 ... or-attack/

Burqa bombers - 7/22/2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55887.html

bedub1 wrote:a real quick google search provided the following:

Four burka bombers - 4/2/2011
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... an-capital

2 burqa bombers - 4/17/2010
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2010 ... or-attack/

Burqa bombers - 7/22/2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55887.html

Lovely- but still not really addressing any of the points I brought up.

Symmetry wrote:

bedub1 wrote:a real quick google search provided the following:

Four burka bombers - 4/2/2011
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... an-capital

2 burqa bombers - 4/17/2010
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2010 ... or-attack/

Burqa bombers - 7/22/2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55887.html

Lovely- but still not really addressing any of the points I brought up.

It's happened more than once. It's both men and women.

I don't' care what people wear UNDER the burqa...the burqa is used to conceal the explosives. You can't put explosives UNDER skinny jeans and have them properly concealed. Yes, backpacks are also used for bombs. Yes, there are many ways of concealing your identity. Some are hard, some are easy. Plastic Surgery is hard. Putting on a burqa is easy. Something that covers 100% of a persons skin, leaves them completely concealed and unrecognizable, isn't something people should be wearing in public.

FYI...i've seen lots of women covered in seattle. Everything is covered except the face, so you can see recognize them and identify them. I think this is fine. I'm against burqa's, just like ski masks.