Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13303
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Hoboh » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:57 am

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Yeah, but the world has come to this state thanks to letting nutters preach hate at mosques and not dealing with them.

Failing to bomb ISIS to oblivion when the armed insurgency in Iraq kicked off.

So you advocate bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians along with them? You don't think that might create a few new terrorists?


These fcukers were riding around the dessert in pickups, in the open, the US had assets to take them out in Iraq but failed to use them, no need for hysterical what about the civilians rants.

Meddling around in Syria because Assad happens to be a mate of Putin and perceived danger to Israel.

But you want to bomb ISIS into oblivion. ISIS are in Syria.


Once the Russians no longer have need of them to keep the US busy, they will get theirs, anyway we are talking WHY the world got into this state, they were not originally in Syria.

Treating wannabe Rambo jihadists with kid gloves instead of nailing their ass to the wall.

Have you any evidence of this?

Plenty, were are the long jail sentences passed out to those who fecked off to Syria and came back?
Or long sentences for those trying to go?
It's the snowflake, they are only misguided youth, give them counselling effect.

Do you seriously wonder why elements in the West are fighting back at every level?

Presumably because we've been bombing muslims for decades. Something you want us to do!
I'd have left the Middle East well alone, dealt with the odd tyrant for anything we needed, certainly not tried to impose Western morals and polices on them.
If they wish to kill each other, just let them get on with it. They could then revel in the religion of peace.

You seem to be a bit muddled up Hoboh.
Muddled my ass!

Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:18 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Bijou Bob wrote:There's been an amazing silence from Gorgeous George Galloway so far on the antics of his best mate slaughtering hundreds if not thousands of his own countrymen.

Not such a good egg after all, eh George?
Ah yes, I forgot about the "true face" of socialism "our George".
You see in simple terms Galloway cannot say 'owt because its not us and the "great Satan USA" killing the people, it's the ones we are supposed to admire :roll:
I'd nuke the Arabs out of spite for trying to ruin our lifes by pumping up the price of crude, why should we suffer?
Doesn't look like a "keep well away" policy to me...

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9167
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:21 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Yeah, but the world has come to this state thanks to letting nutters preach hate at mosques and not dealing with them.

Failing to bomb ISIS to oblivion when the armed insurgency in Iraq kicked off.

So you advocate bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians along with them? You don't think that might create a few new terrorists?


These fcukers were riding around the dessert in pickups, in the open, the US had assets to take them out in Iraq but failed to use them, no need for hysterical what about the civilians rants.

Meddling around in Syria because Assad happens to be a mate of Putin and perceived danger to Israel.

But you want to bomb ISIS into oblivion. ISIS are in Syria.


Once the Russians no longer have need of them to keep the US busy, they will get theirs, anyway we are talking WHY the world got into this state, they were not originally in Syria.

Treating wannabe Rambo jihadists with kid gloves instead of nailing their ass to the wall.

Have you any evidence of this?

Plenty, were are the long jail sentences passed out to those who fecked off to Syria and came back?
Or long sentences for those trying to go?
It's the snowflake, they are only misguided youth, give them counselling effect.

Do you seriously wonder why elements in the West are fighting back at every level?

Presumably because we've been bombing muslims for decades. Something you want us to do!
I'd have left the Middle East well alone, dealt with the odd tyrant for anything we needed, certainly not tried to impose Western morals and polices on them.
If they wish to kill each other, just let them get on with it. They could then revel in the religion of peace.

You seem to be a bit muddled up Hoboh.
Muddled my ass!

Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.
I'm no military expert, but bombing a pick-up truck here and there is hardly solving any sort of problem, It's a lot of targeted individual strikes, which I'm presuming would need a massive amount of tornadoes and expensive bombs which we probably don't have. Would probably mean more austerity too.

I was under the impression that we specifically didn't go to Syria to avoid getting into an Afghan style mess. We've only fairly recently been bombing there. So were we meant to go in or not?

Presumably we don't have any laws allowing us to hand out long jail sentences for going somewhere. How do you determine who went to Syria, which of them were fighting IS and which were fighting for? Or are we locking up and throwing away the key for anyone we think might have been to Syria? Does this include service personnel?

I thought we had been dealing with the odd tyrant - Saddam, Taliban and the Libyan chap. So, we go after Saddam for gassing Iraqis but not Assad for chemical attacks? Is he not a tyrant that has probably killed more Syrians than Saddam Iraqis?

So, are we going after tyrants and bombing folk in the Middle East or not? I'm struggling to see consistency in what you're saying here. Muddled indeed.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:22 pm

Prufrock wrote:
thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Well there's my first attempt above (strictly speaking it's the clothing worn by a fully-clothed brown person on a beach).

I suspect that what is meant is clothing that matches the stipulations that a person is trying to achieve with a burkah - but (crucially) is also designed to be worn in the water...

here's one...

Image


that's the kind of thing that would incite fear and hatred to secular france, so needs to be banned. It seems that telling women what they can and cannot wear out of a sense of ideology is something some secularists and some muslims have in common...
What does it seem to tell you?

Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
Well, except that the ticket she got from the police (arm of the state) described her offense as notcwearing clothes that respeccted "good morals and secularism" - her crime was described as not dressing in a way that respects secularism - i reckon that highlights a link between banning burkinis and secularism... no?

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Enoch » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:28 pm

Can I still wear my mankini?

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9167
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:34 pm

Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it respect good morals?

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Enoch » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:36 pm

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it respect good morals?
Fair point.

:oops:

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:20 pm

Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?

bobo the clown
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 19597
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
Contact:

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by bobo the clown » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:47 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?
If it does I dread to think which.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:35 pm

Prufrock wrote: What does it seem to tell you?

Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. It is wearing a burkini that is an insult to a secular society. Our last government attempted to ban the hijab for similar reasons - we have a secular society. To show no prejudice was involved they also banned the kippah, crucifixes over a certain size, etc. We got rid of the government. We have nothing against a secular society, but there should always be reasonable accommodation. At my apartment pool orthodox Jewish ladies swim in similar attire. I think the municipal authorities at Cannes are just creating problems for themselves, apart from looking stupid in the eyes of the world.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Enoch » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:40 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?
It adorns a God of some sort.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:42 pm

Enoch wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?
It adorns a God of some sort.
I'm glad you left the "of some sort" in there. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:25 pm

thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Well there's my first attempt above (strictly speaking it's the clothing worn by a fully-clothed brown person on a beach).

I suspect that what is meant is clothing that matches the stipulations that a person is trying to achieve with a burkah - but (crucially) is also designed to be worn in the water...

here's one...

Image


that's the kind of thing that would incite fear and hatred to secular france, so needs to be banned. It seems that telling women what they can and cannot wear out of a sense of ideology is something some secularists and some muslims have in common...
What does it seem to tell you?

Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
Well, except that the ticket she got from the police (arm of the state) described her offense as notcwearing clothes that respeccted "good morals and secularism" - her crime was described as not dressing in a way that respects secularism - i reckon that highlights a link between banning burkinis and secularism... no?
Secularism means the separation of church and state and religion being kept in the private sphere. That clearly has no part in telling people what clothing they can or cannot wear in their own time on a beach.

Just because they put on the ticket that it's offending secularism doesnt mean it's got anything to do with secularism. That's not how words work. If the ticket had said it didn't respect Bolton wanderers would it have highlighted a link between banning burkinis and Bolton Wanderers? When I and others talk about secularism we're talking about religion being kept out of the public sphere. This "ban" has sod all to do with us, thanks.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

LeverEnd
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9969
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:18 pm
Location: Dirty Leeds

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by LeverEnd » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Enoch wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?
It adorns a God of some sort.
One which you worship thrice daily?
...

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:04 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Secularism means the separation of church and state and religion being kept in the private sphere. That clearly has no part in telling people what clothing they can or cannot wear in their own time on a beach.
ahh - I see - I think I understand... so - when someone (even a policeman acting on behalf of a state which likes to proclaim itself secularist) writes a formal ticket saying that wearing a burkini on a public beach is an offense because it offends secularism - then we don't have to take that at face value and we can say that he and/or the authority/state that authorises him to write that ticket is not the right sort of secularist or has misunderstood it?

is that what you mean?

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Enoch » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:34 pm

LeverEnd wrote:
Enoch wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Does it believe in a God of some sort?
It adorns a God of some sort.
One which you worship thrice daily?
Not every day!

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13303
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Hoboh » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:06 am

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Yeah, but the world has come to this state thanks to letting nutters preach hate at mosques and not dealing with them.

Failing to bomb ISIS to oblivion when the armed insurgency in Iraq kicked off.

So you advocate bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians along with them? You don't think that might create a few new terrorists?


These fcukers were riding around the dessert in pickups, in the open, the US had assets to take them out in Iraq but failed to use them, no need for hysterical what about the civilians rants.

Meddling around in Syria because Assad happens to be a mate of Putin and perceived danger to Israel.

But you want to bomb ISIS into oblivion. ISIS are in Syria.


Once the Russians no longer have need of them to keep the US busy, they will get theirs, anyway we are talking WHY the world got into this state, they were not originally in Syria.

Treating wannabe Rambo jihadists with kid gloves instead of nailing their ass to the wall.

Have you any evidence of this?

Plenty, were are the long jail sentences passed out to those who fecked off to Syria and came back?
Or long sentences for those trying to go?
It's the snowflake, they are only misguided youth, give them counselling effect.

Do you seriously wonder why elements in the West are fighting back at every level?

Presumably because we've been bombing muslims for decades. Something you want us to do!
I'd have left the Middle East well alone, dealt with the odd tyrant for anything we needed, certainly not tried to impose Western morals and polices on them.
If they wish to kill each other, just let them get on with it. They could then revel in the religion of peace.

You seem to be a bit muddled up Hoboh.
Muddled my ass!

Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.
I'm no military expert, but bombing a pick-up truck here and there is hardly solving any sort of problem, It's a lot of targeted individual strikes, which I'm presuming would need a massive amount of tornadoes and expensive bombs which we probably don't have. Would probably mean more austerity too.

Apaches and warthogs are designed to specifically hunt and kill individual targets, which btw ISIS were not they rode into towns in convoys of 4x4's.

I was under the impression that we specifically didn't go to Syria to avoid getting into an Afghan style mess. We've only fairly recently been bombing there. So were we meant to go in or not?

Presumably we don't have any laws allowing us to hand out long jail sentences for going somewhere. How do you determine who went to Syria, which of them were fighting IS and which were fighting for? Or are we locking up and throwing away the key for anyone we think might have been to Syria? Does this include service personnel?

So despite the fact the security services have lists of who has been and returned, a good number of them under surveillance, you think we have no idea of what they've been up to?

I thought we had been dealing with the odd tyrant - Saddam, Taliban and the Libyan chap. So, we go after Saddam for gassing Iraqis but not Assad for chemical attacks? Is he not a tyrant that has probably killed more Syrians than Saddam Iraqis?

By dealing I did not mean doing away with, just let them run things their way

So, are we going after tyrants and bombing folk in the Middle East or not? I'm struggling to see consistency in what you're saying here. Muddled indeed.

We are but shouldn't be, horse, stable door.


Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Lord Kangana » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:20 am

You've been overdosing on too much war porn hobes.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:39 am

thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Secularism means the separation of church and state and religion being kept in the private sphere. That clearly has no part in telling people what clothing they can or cannot wear in their own time on a beach.
ahh - I see - I think I understand... so - when someone (even a policeman acting on behalf of a state which likes to proclaim itself secularist) writes a formal ticket saying that wearing a burkini on a public beach is an offense because it offends secularism - then we don't have to take that at face value and we can say that he and/or the authority/state that authorises him to write that ticket is not the right sort of secularist or has misunderstood it?

is that what you mean?
1) no it doesn't, and I'd be very surprised if it did. There is a word for secularism in French, "sécularisme", but the word used by the state is laicite. They aren't synonyms. Laicite is almost always translated as secularism because we don't have an equivalent but that isn't what it means.

2) even if they had used the word "secularism" that doesn't mean it is. One of the specious arguments for banning headscarves was that they are a tool of oppression and so the ban protected women's liberty. I don't remember you coming out then and saying it was an indictment on liberalism. Because it clearly had nothing to do with liberalism.

It's an excuse by a(nother) government terrified of the far right to pander to its supporters using laicite as a convenient cover. Every secularist organisation I'm aware of in the UK has condemned it. Mainly because it has feck all to do with the disestablishment of religion.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:26 am

Prufrock wrote:
thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Secularism means the separation of church and state and religion being kept in the private sphere. That clearly has no part in telling people what clothing they can or cannot wear in their own time on a beach.
ahh - I see - I think I understand... so - when someone (even a policeman acting on behalf of a state which likes to proclaim itself secularist) writes a formal ticket saying that wearing a burkini on a public beach is an offense because it offends secularism - then we don't have to take that at face value and we can say that he and/or the authority/state that authorises him to write that ticket is not the right sort of secularist or has misunderstood it?

is that what you mean?
1) no it doesn't, and I'd be very surprised if it did. There is a word for secularism in French, "sécularisme", but the word used by the state is laicite. They aren't synonyms. Laicite is almost always translated as secularism because we don't have an equivalent but that isn't what it means.

2) even if they had used the word "secularism" that doesn't mean it is. One of the specious arguments for banning headscarves was that they are a tool of oppression and so the ban protected women's liberty. I don't remember you coming out then and saying it was an indictment on liberalism. Because it clearly had nothing to do with liberalism.

It's an excuse by a(nother) government terrified of the far right to pander to its supporters using laicite as a convenient cover. Every secularist organisation I'm aware of in the UK has condemned it. Mainly because it has feck all to do with the disestablishment of religion.
fantastic! so - not everything that calls itself secularism or is called secularism IS secularism. I hope the same helpful and sensible attitude is extended to those many millions of muslims who say (with just as much conviction as you show over secularism) that ISIS and terrorist bombings are NOT Islam and have nothing to do with Islam and what it actually is - and are misinterpretations and a misuse of the title.

as for headscarves - they CAN be a tool of oppression - sometimes they are... also - ordering their removal can be a tool of oppression. I'd be equally condemnatory of someone (like a muslim husband) ordering a woman to wear one for "religious" reasons (as he interprets it) as I would be condemnatory of someone (like the french secular state) ordering her NOT to wear it because it offends secularism (as they interpret it). I believe I said this at the time...

incidentally... the public notices on beaches give the rationale for banning the burkini as being about the ostentatious wearing of religious clothing - "...un comportement inapproprie manifestante de maniere ostentatoire une appartenance religieuse." - so, clearly, the French State interprets secularism (the separation of church and state) in such a way that in a society where religion and state are separated there can be no wearing of "ostentatious" religious clothing on a beach (much like the situation Monty described in Canada - a similar interpretation of secularism). Their interpretation of the separation of religion and state very much includes instructions about how people should dress - and consequently, what women are NOT allowed to wear on the beach. That's their rationale... it sounds well within your definition. (and it fits very well with the police ticket about "respecting secularism" or, if you prefer "respecting the separation of religion and state." Your dress should respect our ideology. (their interpretation seems to be counting a visit to the beach as NOT the "private sphere" and therefore faior game for their ban.)

if secularism is merely the (fairly technical) issue of separation of religion and state - then I suspect I am as secularist as you are... I don't know many people who aren't. It seems there are secularists (such as the french state) who are on the radical fundamentalist end of the secularist movement... do they codemn us all? - you and I hope not... (but if not - then the same accomodation should be extended to Muslims.)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 57 guests