Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Muddled my ass!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: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.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!
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.
Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32701
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Doesn't look like a "keep well away" policy to me...Hoboh wrote:Ah yes, I forgot about the "true face" of socialism "our George".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?
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
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?
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9282
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.Hoboh wrote:Muddled my ass!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: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.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!
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.
Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.
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.
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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?Prufrock wrote:What does it seem to tell you?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...
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...
Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Can I still wear my mankini?
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9282
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Does it respect good morals?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Fair point.Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:Does it respect good morals?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32701
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
-
- 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.
If it does I dread to think which.Worthy4England wrote:Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
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".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.Prufrock wrote: What does it seem to tell you?
Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
It adorns a God of some sort.Worthy4England wrote:Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32701
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
I'm glad you left the "of some sort" in there.Enoch wrote:It adorns a God of some sort.Worthy4England wrote:Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.thebish wrote: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?Prufrock wrote:What does it seem to tell you?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...
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...
Not by the way that banning burkinis is in any way "secular".
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.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
One which you worship thrice daily?Enoch wrote:It adorns a God of some sort.Worthy4England wrote:Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
...
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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?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.
is that what you mean?
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Not every day!LeverEnd wrote:One which you worship thrice daily?Enoch wrote:It adorns a God of some sort.Worthy4England wrote:Does it believe in a God of some sort?Enoch wrote:Can I still wear my mankini?
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: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.Hoboh wrote:Muddled my ass!Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: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.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!
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.
Tired of people finding any excuse for these fcukers.
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.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.thebish wrote: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?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.
is that what you mean?
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.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.
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.Prufrock wrote: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.thebish wrote: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?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.
is that what you mean?
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.
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: No registered users and 61 guests