Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/05/phyllis-chesler-america-ban-burqa-musl im-president-obama-france-switzerland/#content Europe is starting to ban the burqa, should we as Americans continue the practice or should we let our 1st amend take precedent, or would you consider it perfectly in our rights to ban a religious covering that conveniently allows people to hide their faces and possibly let men/women that want to do us harm to go places without having to show their faces? Or should we let them keep it and isolate themselves from the rest of us despite the fact that it is the burqa itself that isolates and helps promotes race hatred in people that hate Arabs/Mid easterners? Or should they be allowed to wear it because it is their religon? What do you think. and yes, I read fox news, but not usually the opinions.
Whats a burqa? yes i read the link and i dont get a single cent on what it is.
Yes, but for reasons entirely unrelated to supposed Muslim extremism or security issues. Also, I hate to break it to you, but most of what's on Fox News is opinion peices.
Phase-transport wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 17:20 Whats a burqa? yes i read the link and i dont get a single cent on what it is. Wikipedia? I don't see what purpose it serves, bar the repression of women. I know many (western) women who can acheive modesty without wearing something like that...
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 17:40 Phase-transport wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 17:20 Whats a burqa? yes i read the link and i dont get a single cent on what it is. Wikipedia? I don't see what purpose it serves, bar the repression of women. I know many (western) women who can acheive modesty without wearing something like that... o.0 thats teh last time i wanna know about burqa
start off by protecting kids from religious upbringing (how long is it gonna take for people to realise that kids need to be protected from religion), and then no woman would ever come to the conclusion that she ought to wear a burqa at all. you'll solve an absolutely enormous number of other problems as well. you'll still have muslim men trying to force women to wear it. this proposition would be more popular if it was phrased better. it isn't attempting to impose a ban on clothing, it's attempting to lift a ban on clothing. so no, we shouldn't put up with women being forced to wear the burqa.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 12:15 start off by protecting kids from religious upbringing (how long is it gonna take for people to realise that kids need to be protected from religion), and then no woman would ever come to the conclusion that she ought to wear a burqa at all. you'll solve an absolutely enormous number of other problems as well. you'll still have muslim men trying to force women to wear it. this proposition would be more popular if it was phrased better. it isn't attempting to impose a ban on clothing, it's attempting to lift a ban on clothing. so no, we shouldn't put up with women being forced to wear the burqa. Agreed. Banning the burqa won't do shit to help with the muslim problem in Europe, though. Besides, I don't see any banning of wearing crosses (unless this is already banned in Europe?)... Instead of wasting time trying to ban the burqa, I'd rather see time focused on not giving muslims any special rights in Europe altogether. And no, wearing a burqa isn't a "special right", since technically anyone can wear it. Of course, if any muslims were to oppose anyone that's NOT muslim wearing it, THEN the government should get involved and say "hey no fuck you".
reborn wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 15:23 Just ban Muslims. You're on to something there.
cnc95fan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 15:27 reborn wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 15:23 Just ban Muslims. You're on to something there. Muppet say no!
Enforcing the ban would take a lot of extra work and bureaucracy. Instead, families, and especially men that promote its use should be shown the door, once and for all.
I would not particularly ban the burqa, but anything that covers the whole face besides things for safety such as helmets. Also note that there are more than just Americans around the world and that the same goes for the USA. A better question would be: Do you want to ban the burqa?
reborn wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 22:23 Just ban Muslims. Please add all other religions to that list as well then...
There is no right decision here. If you want to keep it 'American' then you can't ban it but at the same time you can't support it. The Constitution has countless flaws in it that lead to many different paradoxes such as this. The Constitution permits religious freedom but contradicts that same freedom if the religion overrides other rights granted in the Bill of Rights. Just how people have the right to peacefully protest something but banning of anything that isn't directly imposing on other people's rights is unconstitutional. (Banning anything considered 'obscene' that isn't directly restricting the rights of someone else should be and is unconstitutional, yet it happens on almost a daily basis.) The way the bill of rights is set up and how the structure and ideals of the country are supposed to work, it is downright impossible for America to function the way it was designed to. There are way too many 'damned if you do; damned if you don't' paradoxes in the government and the Constitution that make the running of this country completely and utterly impossible. It's amazing that we survived this long in such chaos.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 18:32 There is no right decision here. If you want to keep it 'American' then you can't ban it but at the same time you can't support it. This means nothing. You managed to write this entire paragraph without actually saying anything. >:[
Spoony wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 12:15 start off by protecting kids from religious upbringing (how long is it gonna take for people to realise that kids need to be protected from religion), and then no woman would ever come to the conclusion that she ought to wear a burqa at all. you'll solve an absolutely enormous number of other problems as well. you'll still have muslim men trying to force women to wear it. this proposition would be more popular if it was phrased better. it isn't attempting to impose a ban on clothing, it's attempting to lift a ban on clothing. so no, we shouldn't put up with women being forced to wear the burqa. 10 Page Altzan Vs Spoony Flamewar Inc
The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable".
Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". There goes the full-size stormtrooper outfits, then. Those are good for fancy dress parties.
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 11:34 Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". There goes the full-size stormtrooper outfits, then. Those are good for fancy dress parties. Still it's a good non-discriminative measure to ban things like Burqa's. Also, it would of course only apply to public area's, so inside convention centers you could still run around in your burqastormtrooper costume. Also, this rule could be posed as safety measure and I guess it would not interfere with the US constitution as such. If it does then I'm unsure why Bush was able to torture people and pass more ridiculous lawls.
snpr1101 wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 01:53 Spoony wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 12:15 start off by protecting kids from religious upbringing (how long is it gonna take for people to realise that kids need to be protected from religion) 10 Page Altzan Vs Spoony Flamewar Inc i've said it plenty of times before and i've never heard a good counter-argument. in fact i don't think i've even heard a bad counter-argument.
Just ban the fucking thing. Let the Muslims living in the West come out in a furious rage. Let their true colour be seen. Vile, savage sand monkies praising an absent God, a convoluted book of holy scribblings and a child molester. Spoony wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 12:15 start off by protecting kids from religious upbringing (how long is it gonna take for people to realise that kids need to be protected from religion), and then no woman would ever come to the conclusion that she ought to wear a burqa at all. you'll solve an absolutely enormous number of other problems as well. you'll still have muslim men trying to force women to wear it. this proposition would be more popular if it was phrased better. it isn't attempting to impose a ban on clothing, it's attempting to lift a ban on clothing. so no, we shouldn't put up with women being forced to wear the burqa.
I heard Muslims wrote *CHEAT NAME REMOVE* and then pinned it on 0x90!
Dover wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 00:36 R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 18:32 There is no right decision here. If you want to keep it 'American' then you can't ban it but at the same time you can't support it. This means nothing. You managed to write this entire paragraph without actually saying anything. >:[ Exactly. That's my point. There is no meaning to most of the rights in the Constitution because of paradoxes like the one you quoted me saying.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 09:26 Dover wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 00:36 R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 18:32 There is no right decision here. If you want to keep it 'American' then you can't ban it but at the same time you can't support it. This means nothing. You managed to write this entire paragraph without actually saying anything. >:[ Exactly. That's my point. There is no meaning to most of the rights in the Constitution because of paradoxes like the one you quoted me saying. I was specifically refering to the phrase "keep it American". That phrase means nothing.
Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". I completely agree with this statement, unless it's for some special occasion(Halloween as one prime example), it's really a safety issue for anyone else around them, because ANYONE could be hiding under any outfit that makes them unidentifiable. It could be allowed in homes or religious places, but otherwise it could be a potential problem.
IAmFenix wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 15:54 Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". I completely agree with this statement, unless it's for some special occasion(Halloween as one prime example), it's really a safety issue for anyone else around them, because ANYONE could be hiding under any outfit that makes them unidentifiable. It could be allowed in homes or religious places, but otherwise it could be a potential problem. So what your saying i could be arrested in the future for wearing a purple Teletubbies suit?
Kimb wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 22:24 IAmFenix wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 15:54 Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". I completely agree with this statement, unless it's for some special occasion(Halloween as one prime example), it's really a safety issue for anyone else around them, because ANYONE could be hiding under any outfit that makes them unidentifiable. It could be allowed in homes or religious places, but otherwise it could be a potential problem. So what your saying i could be arrested in the future for wearing a purple Teletubbies suit? With some common sense applied, someone in a fancy dress costume walking down a street is probably not planning to attack somewhere. Someone concealing their identity in an airport, however...
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 23:42 Kimb wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 22:24 IAmFenix wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 15:54 Goztow wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 07:56 The first steps have been made in the legal process to ban "every outfit that makes someone completely unidentifiable". I completely agree with this statement, unless it's for some special occasion(Halloween as one prime example), it's really a safety issue for anyone else around them, because ANYONE could be hiding under any outfit that makes them unidentifiable. It could be allowed in homes or religious places, but otherwise it could be a potential problem. So what your saying i could be arrested in the future for wearing a purple Teletubbies suit? With some common sense applied, someone in a fancy dress costume walking down a street is probably not planning to attack somewhere. Someone concealing their identity in an airport, however... Why not? I guess it's easy enough to get a huge mascot uniform and fill it up with explosives. Walk to a busy street and do boom! So with common sense applied, the lawl counts for everyone.
This is how it's currently proposed in belgium. It has already passed the chamber.
= Don't think so But in the Airports it would be OK
Kimb wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 07:19 We should check their IDs, and have their suits checked for bombs.
IAmFenix wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 21:29 Kimb wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 07:19 We should check their IDs, and have their suits checked for bombs. I'd say their threath level is about as high as a burqa, but hey...
reborn wrote on Tue, 08 June 2010 23:04 Why, you suspect they're Muslims? You suspect that all Muslims are terrorists?
No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.
reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 00:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. Terrorism comes in more forms than blowing yourself yelling "PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!".
Yeah, but out of the Two, I'd rather deal with the teletubby.
reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. I also really hated all them Irish IRA muslims as well :/
Historically there have been other races commit acts of terrorism, yes. However, none have compared in numbers to the amount of Muslim terrorists we live with in the world today. Also, the IRA gave up their weapons. When the Oklahoma bombing happened their was 5000 IRA supporters celebrating it. Millions of Muslims celebrated 9/11 from Morocco to Indonesia. Just to reiterate what I am saying: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it's a sad truth that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 13:04 TALITUBBY
I'm American,and I strongly believe in the freedoms the Constitution and ammendments give. I'm tired of the government taking our freedoms for our "safety". The patriot acts already shits on the constitution enough,we don't need anymore laws that strip us of our rights.
it's a nice statement and i certainly agree with it on principle (we don't have a bill of rights over here and it'd be cool if we did, we certainly don't have freedom of speech) but could you be a bit more specific?
The only problem is that I don't think many women who wear burqa's are doing it on their own accord. Your US constitution enshrines liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those women's right to both of those basic privileges are probably being eroded by domineering men, using overbearing Quaranic verses to legitimize the wearing of such a restrictive piece of clothing.
reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well.
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:30 The only problem is that I don't think many women who wear burqa's are doing it on their own accord. Your US constitution enshrines liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those women's right to both of those basic privileges are probably being eroded by domineering men, using overbearing Quaranic verses to legitimize the wearing of such a restrictive piece of clothing. You got it, nikki. This is what I have been saying for so long. In America, we are told how it's an awesome multicultural enviroment and can now help ourselves to freedom and what not, but in reality, it is really a highly segregated system where each cultural group commands its own. So the opportunity of the people from these groups to break out and truly be free is limited because the "group" they are from doesn't give a shit about the Constitution or the new freedoms available to them. Instead the dominating blowhards within such cultural groups force the old system onto their children and hide behind their vain cultural heritage or religion. I always thought this was one of the problems with modern immigration. One example I can use is myself and a conservative Indian blowhard I knew from high school. You can say he is a product of Indian culture. Brought up by zealots (both religiously and culturally), he thinks dating is a "sin" and represents "legalized adultery." He also refused to go to high school prom saying how it was "immoral." I always put this down to him being an intolerant blinded asshole disrespectful of other lifestyles. So in my opinion, he is like a Muslim woman living in the west who wants to wear the burqa because she don't know any better; they are brainwashed and brought up to think that way. Then you have people like me, and I honestly I never really gave a crap about culture or nationalism due to living in too many countries and the fact I left India when I was only 8. While I don't dislike other "cultures" I had always seen these as divisive inhibitions. So eitherway, I found the American lifestyle incredibly appealing and free and a welcome breather. I had no differences of opinion with dating and despite having the same type of religious-cultural zealots as parents, I didn't get influenced by their views. So when it was time for me to go to the high school prom with my best lady-friend five years ago, the reply was a silent "no-no." And my parents said afterwards what a "good boy" I am to them for not going! Idiots! So then, my case is comparable to that of a Muslim woman who is actually forced to wear the burqa eventhough she don't want to wear it. It all comes down to the dominating men with "culture shock" that are the problem. It could be the Muslim blowhard men or say culturally and religiously motivated people like my parents. It's these people that must be stopped for the problem to go away but tbh, I don't know how that will be done. This being said, I think it is in a way unfair to ask these of western governmenets and western peoples. Because it is a problem immigrants are bringing to you...another headache for you to deal with. And one way to solve it is to ignore it and let the various sub-cultures in western society to stay the way they are (along with the broken hearts and miserable lives). I see the banning of the burqa as a step to integration even though it seems to go against the western view of free choice. Well, in this case I can say, "free coice" was clearly being abused.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist?
i almost kinda agree with reborn. I got a good reason though, Taliban killed my causin in afghanistan.
renalpha wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 17:48 i almost kinda agree with reborn. I got a good reason though, Taliban killed my causin in afghanistan. And uhm caused the 9/11
Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 21:13 Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation. No
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 21:13 Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation. Correctus.
Kimb wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 12:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 21:13 Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation. No Ok. Good arguments. So if some foreign government invades your country, lays down ridicules restrictions and such, you'll do nothing to stop it? Because if you do try to stop it, you're a terrorist from the foreign government point of view. It's all in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason there is a saying like: History is written by the victor.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 09:40 Kimb wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 12:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 21:13 Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation. No Ok. Good arguments. So if some foreign government invades your country, lays down ridicules restrictions and such, you'll do nothing to stop it? Because if you do try to stop it, you're a terrorist from the foreign government point of view. It's all in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason there is a saying like: History is written by the victor. But the goverment is not rightfully there, so its not Terror, its freedom fighing. Take back what was ours. so "No"
freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement...
reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 21:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... thats terrorism because it was preformed in another country, unless their "pure" americans with no background from other country/places
herpa de derpa, 9/11 so muslims is bad hurr
Kimb wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 19:21 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 09:40 Kimb wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 12:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 21:13 Kimb wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 15:12 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:38 reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 07:16 No, but that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. IRA/ETA are muslim as well? I think that terrorism isn't exactly locked to one religion. Also think of Falun Gong in China as another example. While China is more off the bad ass there (human rights and such), they do present Falun Gong as terrorists. Don't forget that the resistance in WWII where terrorist to the regime in Europe as well. And your trying to say what? Everyones a terrorist? Everyone is a potential terrorist, depending on the situation. No Ok. Good arguments. So if some foreign government invades your country, lays down ridicules restrictions and such, you'll do nothing to stop it? Because if you do try to stop it, you're a terrorist from the foreign government point of view. It's all in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason there is a saying like: History is written by the victor. But the goverment is not rightfully there, so its not Terror, its freedom fighing. Take back what was ours. so "No" Point of view. Who determines what's wrong from right? I surely cannot tell. One could say USA, but another one could say they are no better than China and the likes with Guantanamo bay. Which both could be true.
Kimb wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 22:50 reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 21:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... thats terrorism because it was preformed in another country, unless their "pure" americans with no background from other country/places Actually, the Muslims that did that where American nationality.
reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 19:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... Understand me right, killing innocent people is never the right thing to do, but the definition of terrorism is based purely on opinion. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Edit: any killing is wrong. One can never determine whether the other truly deserved it and you're no better than the one you despise when you murder him, whether legally allowed or not, it's still morally wrong.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 22:12 reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 19:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... Understand me right, killing innocent people is never the right thing to do, but the definition of terrorism is based purely on opinion. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Edit: any killing is wrong. One can never determine whether the other truly deserved it and you're no better than the one you despise when you murder him, whether legally allowed or not, it's still morally wrong. Let's assume you're right, and all you said above was true. Whether they're a freedom fighter or terrorist in this argument is irrelevant really. What you class them as is just a word. reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 06:04 Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it's a sad truth that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. If it helps, change it to: reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 06:04 Not all Muslims are freedom fighters, but it's a sad truth that nearly all freedom fighters are Muslim. Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism.
reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:15 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 22:12 reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 19:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... Understand me right, killing innocent people is never the right thing to do, but the definition of terrorism is based purely on opinion. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Edit: any killing is wrong. One can never determine whether the other truly deserved it and you're no better than the one you despise when you murder him, whether legally allowed or not, it's still morally wrong. Let's assume you're right, and all you said above was true. Whether they're a freedom fighter or terrorist in this argument is irrelevant really. What you class them as is just a word. reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 06:04 Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it's a sad truth that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. If it helps, change it to: reborn wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 06:04 Not all Muslims are freedom fighters, but it's a sad truth that nearly all freedom fighters are Muslim. Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism. I disagree, I think it would cause just more anger at the western world. Particularly because 'we' the 'modern' and 'civilized' world are forcing 'freedom' on other countries. While Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion are very high morals, we should at least live by them ourself before we want to force them on others. Banning the burqa because a lot of muslims are terrorists (I do not agree to that, but just lets presume it is), would be wrong, we would violate the freedom of religion. Personally I'd like to see all religion banned, but I know that's not going to happen, so then we should allow all religions. The solution to this would be, as said earlier, banning all face covering clothes, or clothes that makes people unidentifiable, in public. This would be something I do find acceptable.
reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 04:15 Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism. no, no it would not It's only an immature method of fighting a problem, when there are so many other alternatives. Said alternatives won't be heard of because it involves the removal of the ability to use religion as a form of propaganda as it is... but then, if they did that, they wouldn't be able to do so with christianity like they'd been doing for years (unless they want to be seen for being the obvious hypocrites they are). Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". It's immature, it's retarded, and it gets nothing done except make the other person beat the fuck out of you.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 04:15 Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism. no, no it would not It's only an immature method of fighting a problem, when there are so many other alternatives. Said alternatives won't be heard of because it involves the removal of the ability to use religion as a form of propaganda as it is... but then, if they did that, they wouldn't be able to do so with christianity like they'd been doing for years (unless they want to be seen for being the obvious hypocrites they are). Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". It's immature, it's retarded, and it gets nothing done except make the other person beat the fuck out of you. Yes, politicians across Europe in their immaturity have traveled to their individual parliaments on tricycles and have sat down and accepted the banning of the burqa whilst sucking on lollipops and asking mommy for ice cream afterwards before being dropped off to kindergarten. It's not "immature"; it's not "retarded" and it does get something done. Edit: GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". So much fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 14:35 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 04:15 Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism. no, no it would not It's only an immature method of fighting a problem, when there are so many other alternatives. Said alternatives won't be heard of because it involves the removal of the ability to use religion as a form of propaganda as it is... but then, if they did that, they wouldn't be able to do so with christianity like they'd been doing for years (unless they want to be seen for being the obvious hypocrites they are). Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". It's immature, it's retarded, and it gets nothing done except make the other person beat the fuck out of you. Yes, politicians across Europe in their immaturity have traveled to their individual parliaments on tricycles and have sat down and accepted the banning of the burqa whilst sucking on lollipops and asking mommy for ice cream afterwards before being dropped off to kindergarten. It's not "immature"; it's not "retarded" and it does get something done. Edit: GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". So much fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48 FAIL. European ministers have not done that. They have proposed forbidding any face covering clothes, for the valid reason that having the face visible is needed for identification (safety) and normal communication (integration in some cases as well). That is different to banning just burqa's/niquaabs, which would be retarded as George zimmmer already explained. What is fail however is that the Australian politicians have decided to censor the internet, to protect against terrorism and childporn. Even more fail is that some dentist website ended on the list, thus not being reachable any more. So tell me, how can you say anything about Europe? You don't live here and your information flow is obviously compromised.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 07:47 snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 14:35 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 04:15 Banning the Burqa would help hinder acts of freedom fighting/terrorism. no, no it would not It's only an immature method of fighting a problem, when there are so many other alternatives. Said alternatives won't be heard of because it involves the removal of the ability to use religion as a form of propaganda as it is... but then, if they did that, they wouldn't be able to do so with christianity like they'd been doing for years (unless they want to be seen for being the obvious hypocrites they are). Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". It's immature, it's retarded, and it gets nothing done except make the other person beat the fuck out of you. Yes, politicians across Europe in their immaturity have traveled to their individual parliaments on tricycles and have sat down and accepted the banning of the burqa whilst sucking on lollipops and asking mommy for ice cream afterwards before being dropped off to kindergarten. It's not "immature"; it's not "retarded" and it does get something done. Edit: GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 06:59 Really, banning the burqa is the equivalent of taking someone's hat during an argument and then going "HAHA I WIN, I HAVE YOUR HAT". So much fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48 FAIL. European ministers have not done that. They have proposed forbidding any face covering clothes, for the valid reason that having the face visible is needed for identification (safety) and normal communication (integration in some cases as well). That is different to banning just burqa's/niquaabs, which would be retarded as George zimmmer already explained. What is fail however is that the Australian politicians have decided to censor the internet, to protect against terrorism and childporn. Even more fail is that some dentist website ended on the list, thus not being reachable any more. So tell me, how can you say anything about Europe? You don't live here and your information flow is obviously compromised. Excuse me sir; may I offer to you the definition of sarcasm. "A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Insincerely saying something which is the opposite of one's intended meaning, often to emphasize how unbelievable or unlikely it sounds if taken literally, thereby illustrating the obvious nature of one's intended meaning." I understand that English may not be your first language; which may be a reason for your mis-interpretation of what I said. If you read what I said again; and what George said; you may find that I disagree with him.
snpr1101 wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 07:35 stupid shit cool arguments bro except for the part that you, y'know, didn't actually answer shit, and simply linked to a video (which I'll admit is much more well spoken) have yet to see what banning the burqa would do other than being an immature act I'll definitely agree with anything involving taking away certain special rights that muslins get in Europe, but I see no reason to take away the burqa (stupid as it may be to wear around in Europe) Just to clear things up, I hate how a lot of muslims just run into Europe and cause problems constantly despite hating it... it does nothing but give the rest of the muslims a bad name. But banning the burqa will not do SHIT. Oh, wait, I forgot, you guys LIKE it when the muslims get pissed off and riot all the time in Europe right? riiiight?
To be fair, cultural rejection of their standards (European countries are by and large non-muslim anyhow) would be better, but that requires people to not be afraid, which after 9/11, is hard; That is, countries like Britain should be saying: "This is OUR country, integrate in OUR society. We're already providing you a place to live, don't start dictacting how we should run it. If this country doesn't live the way you want to live, live elsewhere."
CarrierII wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 08:49 To be fair, cultural rejection of their standards (European countries are by and large non-muslim anyhow) would be better, but that requires people to not be afraid, which after 9/11, is hard; That is, countries like Britain should be saying: "This is OUR country, integrate in OUR society. We're already providing you a place to live, don't start dictacting how we should run it. If this country doesn't live the way you want to live, live elsewhere." Fucking exactly, being a passive aggressive, immature cock isn't going to solve anything. The muslims causing the commotion that they are won't get why the burqa would be banned. I mean shit, this is a group of people that are forcefully living in a land they supposedly hate- obviously logic does not apply to this group of muslims who can't attempt to adapt to their surroundings. So instead, you have to be OPEN and DIRECT about it- just say no to the bullshit, and if they're not going to be polite, don't be polite either. If they want to start ANY kind of terrorism campaigns in Europe, then I can easily see a nice fat boot from Europe aimed in the direction of their rear ends.
reborn wrote on Fri, 11 June 2010 19:22 freedom fighter, or terrorist, interesting arguement... i must say though, NICE PHOTO SHOT!!!!
reborn wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 12:13 Just ban organized religion. I fixed that post for you.
treat religion like drugs imho. shouldn't be banned for an adult who is inclined to dabble in them, but kids need to be protected from them.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 01:32 treat religion like drugs imho. shouldn't be banned for an adult who is inclined to dabble in them, but kids need to be protected from them. A lot of drugs are banned as well, some for good reasons, but a lot are just banned because of culture. Quite a lof of drugs are less damaging and/or less addicting than alcohol, while alcohol is freely available and drugs are not. If alcohol where to be invented today then it would most likely be banned.