Burqa's in Walking Street

[joekicker 53]

But this thread is about the burqa..........Some say its just an innocuous item of clothing. I think I've shown that it in this incident it is more than that. If you want to draw parallels Tom look at today's date and tell me another religion today that would tolerate the death of its daughters because they were not dressed in an item of religious clothing......

 

Another? You can't even name one, not with your silly "today" stricture. Why did you put that on?

 

You need to get a grip on the difference between religion and society. Example: You appear from your posts not to realise that Jews wear the burqa. Well... - kind of like Muslims, some Jews.

 

.

Edited October 17, 2011 by joekicker

[nidnoyham 30]

I remember walking around the Camel Market in Bearsheba, Israel.

 

A lady was wearing just that piece of cloth over her lower face. As she sat down to breast feed her baby, she removed it to cool down a bit. She was pretty ugly and looked much better when it was in place. I wondere if hubby made her wear it in bed ?

[joekicker 53]

A lady was wearing just that piece of cloth over her lower face. As she sat down to breast feed her baby, she removed it to cool down a bit. She was pretty ugly and looked much better when it was in place. I wondere if hubby made her wear it in bed ? rolleyes

 

Breasts on her face? That does sound ugl... well, kinky maybe??

 

.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

But this thread is about the burqa..........

 

 

... as worn on Walking Street in Pattaya. Maybe the OP got it wrong and they were just a bunch of Thai buddhist, transvestite nuns. They get around you know.

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to draw parallels Tom look at today's date and tell me another religion today that would tolerate the death of its daughters because they were not dressed in an item of religious clothing......

I couldn't find anything in your link that said the deaths were tolerated by anyone. Was there any sort of inquiry into the fire at the school that you mentioned? The link you provided was a BBC report that was written a couple of days after the fire.

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2011 by CheshireTom

[Obsession 571]

I remember walking around the Camel Market in Bearsheba, Israel.

 

A lady was wearing just that piece of cloth over her lower face. As she sat down to breast feed her baby, she removed it to cool down a bit. She was pretty ugly and looked much better when it was in place. I wondere if hubby made her wear it in bed ?

 

Nid, I remember you are one of the few who remembers the racist murder and setting on fire of schoolboy Kriss Donald in Scotland by muslim racists. Unfortunately he didn't get a statue or his parents honours , like Steven Lawrence. But as Brits, we are used to getting lesser treatment than immigrants. Anyway, one of Kriss's murderers got attacked in prison. Unfortunately he wasn't badly hurt! It probably wasn't mentioned in the national press.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/274224-teenager-kriss-donalds-killer-attacked-in-prison/

 

He is suing for being kept in segregation for his own safety. If they offered to let him into mainstream prison population he would probably shit himself lol. Not many schoolboys in there he could bully.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/274224-teenager-kriss-donalds-killer-attacked-in-prison/

 

Bit off topic. But didn't know where else to tell you the good news, and it's become the usual muslim thread by now anyway.

[jacko 8,822]

Tom look at today's date and tell me another religion today that would tolerate the death of its daughters because they were not dressed in an item of religious clothing......

Orthodox Judaism?

[atlas2 4,329]

Another? You can't even name one, not with your silly "today" stricture. Why did you put that on?

 

You need to get a grip on the difference between religion and society. Example: You appear from your posts not to realise that Jews wear the burqa. Well... - kind of like Muslims, some Jews.

 

.

 

Your original reply which is in my email inbox..... before your major,' edit / re-write / re-think', was one line and went......."Why do you restrict the timeline? Afraid?

 

By that I take your answer to my question, (which was to find another religion currently which would tolerate the death of 15 girls because they were not dressed in the proscribed religious manner) to be.............. 'No I can't'

 

Why the re-write Joe..? Afraid?

[atlas2 4,329]

 

 

I couldn't find anything in your link that said the deaths were tolerated by anyone. Was there any sort of inquiry into the fire at the school that you mentioned? The link you provided was a BBC report that was written a couple of days after the fire.

 

 

 

My link

 

 

 

There was a stink in the previously complient Saudi press........... But any hint of reform had to wait for the deaths in custody of 2 people in 2 weeks.

There's lots on Wiki...this seemed the most balanced and recent. A general report from Time Mag'

Edited October 18, 2011 by atlas2

[Obsession 571]

Your original reply which is in my email inbox..... before your major,' edit / re-write / re-think', was one line and went......."Why do you restrict the timeline? Afraid?

 

Why the re-write Joe..? Afraid?

 

I had the same issue with Joe. He denied editing his post, but I had already read it. Maybe I shouldn't say as I will get "grumped" at, but just wanted to confirm your experience. Sad sacks should man up to editing posts.imho.

[joekicker 53]

Your original reply which is in my email inbox..... before your major,' edit / re-write / re-think', was one line and went......."Why do you restrict the timeline? Afraid?

 

Quite true. I did write that and then think better of it. So. You wouldn't answer the original which you saw and want to kvetch about. You wouldn't answer the edit which you ignore. What's the deal with that?

 

By that I take your answer to my question, (which was to find another religion currently which would tolerate the death of 15 girls because they were not dressed in the proscribed religious manner) to be.............. 'No I can't'

 

Heh. Well, you're right. You really got me. A true moment of victory, you got me dead to rights. I cannot name a second religion that cheers the killing of children because of their clothes.

 

As I already answered you once,

 

Another? You can't even name one,

 

I can't name ANOTHER religion because you can't name ONE, and that's because there isn't one religion in the first place. ("I can't take more" tea, said Alice.) No religion in the world does or might or would tolerate any such thing. There isn't one. So there certainly can't be another one. And so you're right, I can't name ANOTHER one any more than you (or I) can name the second Thai driver killed in Sunday's Indy race in the US.

 

.

Edited October 18, 2011 by joekicker

[CheshireTom 1,377]

My link

 

 

 

There was a stink in the previously complient Saudi press........... But any hint of reform had to wait for the deaths in custody of 2 people in 2 weeks.

There's lots on Wiki...this seemed the most balanced and recent. A general report from Time Mag'

 

Your link is a general report about the religous police, this thread is about the burqa. I just wanted to know if there was an investigation into the deaths you cited. You know, a bit like Hillsborough.

Edited October 18, 2011 by CheshireTom

[nidnoyham 30]

I imagine Martin would welcome a FLB party, with a Nuns and Vicars theme- Dunno so much about a Burqa and Muslim Cleric, one tho'

 

Some bugger would turn up as as suicide bomber and all hell would break loose !

Edited October 18, 2011 by nidnoyham

[atlas2 4,329]

Quite true. I did write that and then think better of it. So. You wouldn't answer the original which you saw and want to kvetch about. You wouldn't answer the edit which you ignore. What's the deal with that?

 

 

 

Heh. Well, you're right. You really got me. A true moment of victory, you got me dead to rights. I cannot name a second religion that cheers the killing of children because of their clothes.

 

As I already answered you once,

 

 

 

I can't name ANOTHER religion because you can't name ONE, and that's because there isn't one religion in the first place. ("I can't take more" tea, said Alice.) No religion in the world does or might or would tolerate any such thing. There isn't one. So there certainly can't be another one. And so you're right, I can't name ANOTHER one any more than you (or I) can name the second Thai driver killed in Sunday's Indy race in the US.

 

.

 

 

 

No victories here Joe. ..for you or for me. Can't you just for once..........just for a Worksop millisecond understand that the issue of 15 girls losing their lives in this way calls for a response based on our humanity and not on our side of the debate...........Celebrate what you want with your snide prose. It's clear that you don't believe, or more likely that you feel that there is enough wriggle room to avoid placing responsibility for these deaths at the door of the hated 'Pious ones.'

 

But from all that I've read, I believe ( and so does the world's press,including the Arab world and most of Saudi Arabia) that the Mutaween bare direct responsibility for the needless deaths that day.

 

Their actions were based on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and carried out in the name of Islam and because of that motivation and that authority their actions were tolerated. Eye-witness accounts attested to girls being beaten back into the building by the hands that should have offered them help. That civil defence members were obstructed from carrying in buckets of water into the school to dowse the flames. The fact that the subsequent cover-up glossed over this fooled no one. And shouldn't fool you.

 

It happened in a Muslim country. It happened in the home of the Hajj. It happened because of Sharia Law. It happened because the girls were Muslim. It happened because without a head scarf they were an unfit, polluting sight........It happened because of the burqa.

 

 

Twist, wriggle, obfuscate, deflect........or deceive if you want but it will just diminish you.

 

 

 

 

[joekicker 53]

No victories here Joe. ..for you or for me. Can't you just for once..........just for a Worksop millisecond understand that the issue of 15 girls losing their lives in this way calls for a response based on our humanity and not on our side of the debate.

 

You brought religion into this humanity issue. It would be great if you now took it back out and made it a humanity issue, and a legal one of course, since any decent person ALSO hopes justice is delivered here.

 

..........Celebrate what you want with your snide prose. It's clear that you don't believe, or more likely that you feel that there is enough wriggle room to avoid placing responsibility for these deaths at the door of the hated 'Pious ones.'

 

And there you go again. So why do you keep putting religion into this? I'm the one who said it doesn't involve religion, remember?

 

But from all that I've read, I believe ( and so does the world's press,including the Arab world and most of Saudi Arabia) that the Mutaween bare direct responsibility for the needless deaths that day.

 

Quite possible. Very credible from the little I know of the case. So let's just grant that for now, sake of argument and all. You claim their religion somehow.... condones the killings. But it doesn't. NO religion does, or would.

 

Their actions were based on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and carried out in the name of Islam and because of that motivation and that authority their actions were tolerated.

 

And again. Because these creeps say God made them do it, therefore Islam condones it. That's Olympic-class leaping. Why stop there?

 

So, in a way -- it's kind of like God made the pious priests paw the kids and Buddha blessed the Thai cops who chained girls to the bed before the fire and Shiva stands guard for corrupt Indian politicians. The religion is responsible for the actions of its believers.

 

Eye-witness accounts attested to girls being beaten back into the building by the hands that should have offered them help. That civil defence members were obstructed from carrying in buckets of water into the school to dowse the flames. The fact that the subsequent cover-up glossed over this fooled no one. And shouldn't fool you.

 

Heh. Believe me, it doesn't. I'm not doubting the badness of a religious policeman or his friends or his village or his carefully raised mob -- not for a second. I've watched "The Stoning of Soraya M." three times. I specifically believe your reports of this fire and killings. Bad things happen, and bad people hurry them along, there's not a shred of doubt about it. I will spare you details of 20 similar instances of horrible, terrible stuff by similar people. There's nothing new under the sun along this line. I presume you've heard of witch burnings? Present day witch burnings, that is? Inquisitions? The Lord's Resistance Army? Roasting widows? Luther and Johnny Htoo?

 

Their religions didn't do any of those and don't do any of those that occur today and tomorrow, either. Including killing school girls. And the religions don't condone them, not one of them.

 

Here's one that is STILL covered up and justified. A Thai queen and her princess-daughter fell into the water. They were left to drown because anyone who touched a royal would be killed. That was FOUR kings ago, in "modern" times. Buddhism was at fault? Some actually say so, but they're wrong. Bad, stupid, evil... take your pick.

 

There is no second religion that condones ANY of this stuff, because there isn't ONE religion in the first place. You were right the second time, and wrong the first and third - it IS a matter of humanity - and of law/justice. Nothing to do with the religion of these sick old men or thousands like them in history and today.

 

It might be just me, of course, but I am curious about the answer to Mr Cheshire's question - if you know if there was any sort of inquiry, any sort of recommendation or action or justice in this case at all?

 

.

Edited October 18, 2011 by joekicker

[CheshireTom 1,377]

 

It might be just me, of course, but I am curious about the answer to Mr Cheshire's question - if you know if there was any sort of inquiry, any sort of recommendation or action or justice in this case at all?

 

 

I'm a bit confused by the reference to this Saudi incident. I can't find any credible reference whatsoever that indicates the 15 girls were burnt to death.

 

PC thought in nearly every instance is either the acceptance of a lie, a denial of a truth or the cowardly failiure to face up to a truth.

15 girls burn when they could have been saved you say bugger all about it and I'm the bigot!

 

 

[nidnoyham 30]

Back to my Muslim themed party at FLB.

 

Dress all the girls up in top to toe, Muslim outfits. Take their name tags away and replace them with a number. Bar fine the one you 'fancy' and don't take the gear off until you are back to the hotel. If you get one you don't particularly like, make her keep the top bit on .

[TheFiend 1,181]

I get it already.........There aren't any countries/religions that do not have a stain of blood somewhere in there history. None.

 

But this thread is about the burqa..........Some say its just an innocuous item of clothing. I think I've shown that it in this incident it is more than that. If you want to draw parallels Tom look at today's date and tell me another religion today that would tolerate the death of its daughters because they were not dressed in an item of religious clothing......

 

And they must wear stockings and suspenders!!!

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

I'm not worried about a few burqa-clad women on Walking Street. It's more guys like this who are a concern:

 

 

 

I almost got into a 9/11 memorial battle with them on Sept 11.. One was drunk and very aggressive and they were all going to have go at me. Thais intervened to keep the peace, so nothing really happened, but it was very tense for a few minutes. I wasn't going to back down and thought I'd finally got my chance to do a Davey Crockett, or perhaps more culturally accurate, a Gordon at Khartoum.

 

It was interesting experience. A couple of WS freelancers came in on my side and starting yelling at those guys to "Go away," then invited me to sit with them at their table. The restaurant owner and even the toilet attendant, mop in hand, got involved. I took it those guys weren't well liked.

 

Evil

Edited October 19, 2011 by Evil Penevil

[joekicker 53]

It was interesting experience. A couple of WS freelancers came in on my side and starting yelling at those guys to "Go away," then invited me to sit with them at their table. The restaurant owner and even the toilet attendant, mop in hand, got involved. I took it those guys weren't well liked.

 

Not all Muslims are Arabs, not all Americans are geopolitically challenged, etc, etc, etc.

 

.

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

Not all Muslims are Arabs, not all Americans are geopolitically challenged, etc, etc, etc.

 

In my post, I mentioned neither Muslims nor Arabs. But anyway ...

 

It's true that not all Muslims are Arabs; in fact, the majority of the world's Muslims aren't Arabs. And not all Arabs are Muslims, just like not all Thais are Buddhists; not all Indians are Hindu; not all Irish are Catholics; not all Israelis are Jews; not all Swedes are Lutherans and not all Alabamans are Baptists. What does that prove, other than there is almost no hegemony in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion? The one exception might be Malaysia, where, according to the constitution, all Malays are by definition Muslim and conversion to another religion by Malays is impossible except under very rare circumstances.

 

What's more significant is that the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims and the societies in which they have been brought up and live have been heavily influenced by Islamic precepts, including the discriminatory treatment of non-believers under Sharia law. When a citizen of the USA, the UK and other Western democracies discriminates on the basis of religion, he or she is violating secular law. When a Muslim discriminates against an infidel, he is acting in accordance with Sharia law.

 

Several hundred years ago in the West, religion became a matter of individual conscience, not civic duty. That isn't the case in Muslim societies, although Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made a valiant attempt in Turkey to secularize his country. Very few people on this board (or in real life) object to Islam on purely theological grounds. It is the politicized form of Islam that is determined to replace secular laws with ones based on revelation to which opponents of Islamism object. It's the supremacy ( in the minds of Muslims) of the Quran over man-made law and convention that causes problems. You can see it at the geopolitical level - Muslims are currently involved in armed conflicts with Christian, Jews, Buddhists and Hndus - as well as on the streets of Pattaya.

 

I no idea whether the guys I encountered on WS were good or bad Muslims, or even if they were Muslims. But one thing was for sure - they were definitely assh*les. And that behavior is largely due to the societal norms to which they are accustomed.

 

Evil

[atlas2 4,329]

 

Quite possible. Very credible from the little I know of the case. So let's just grant that for now, sake of argument and all. You claim their religion somehow.... condones the killings. But it doesn't. NO religion does, or would.

 

And again. Because these creeps say God made them do it, therefore Islam condones it. That's Olympic-class leaping. Why stop there?

 

So, in a way -- it's kind of like God made the pious priests paw the kids and Buddha blessed the Thai cops who chained girls to the bed before the fire and Shiva stands guard for corrupt Indian politicians. The religion is responsible for the actions of its believers.

 

Their religions didn't do any of those and don't do any of those that occur today and tomorrow, either. Including killing school girls. And the religions don't condone them, not one of them.

 

 

There is no second religion that condones ANY of this stuff, because there isn't ONE religion in the first place. You were right the second time, and wrong the first and third - it IS a matter of humanity - and of law/justice. Nothing to do with the religion of these sick old men or thousands like them in history and today.

 

 

.

 

Firstly don't presume for yourself the right to pass judgement. Being 'right' or 'wrong' in your eyes doesn't make me either. The measure of your opinion is the same in value as any other board member. Just as the New-York millisecond you persist with is equal to a millisecond in Newcastle.

 

Sharing the same repugnance for the death of these girls our differing 'opinion' seems to hinge on how we view 'religion' and by that understanding where we place the blame.

In your case it's a legal matter pure and simple and the Mutaween acted from either 'A'... a motivation that had nothing to do with the religion of Islam...or from 'B'....a twisted corruption of Islam.

 

Either way you feel this exonerates Islam as a religion from all responsibility. Islam as a religion is not in anyway pertinent to the argument. I disagree.

 

In the case of 'A' the Mutaween, by definition are Saudi's Pious religious thought police....So Islam is implicated.

 

In the case of 'B' a perversion of the true teaching of Islam still implicates Islam in that they were empowered to act in this way on behalf of Islam and that their actions were tolerated. In this instance in this country Islam is involved.

 

You let Islam off Scott-free. No half measures.....You let all religions off Scott free, for every one of history's religious bloodbaths. Perverted man's twisted interpretation of their respective religion is to blame. The religion itself bears no responsibility. No religion tolerates, encourages ...... or turns a blind eye to atrocities carried out in its name. No religion, never, ....or ever will. But you know it has. History is a catalogue of competeing religions doing down one another and keeping their own flocks in line with more than tea and cake.

 

So my opinion is they have tolerated, they currently, in the case of Islam tolerate, and they will continue to tolerate. The intolerable. And by 'they' I mean just pick one. I certainly don't let Christianity off the hook

 

Now I'm NOT disagreeing that men have taken the word of God and bent it when needs be to suit their needs.

 

But let's just look at this briefly.

 

In essence I'm saying that a religion consists of 3 parts.

 

The Word

The clergy

The congregation.

 

 

Let's start with the Clergy. For them religion is partly about power. The religion is run to their advantage and to advance their beleifs over other religions. In increasing their numbers and the power of their 'church' they are doing God's work.

 

The congregations of all beliefs contain the pious, the lip-service believers,the godly, and also the hypocrites and frankly the bloody evil.

 

 

 

I'll come back to this later today.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I'll come back to this later today.

 

When you do, can you please provide some reference to these girls burning to death and the actions of the religious police being directly responsible for that outcome. That's what you have stated, and are asking folk to accept as the basis for the rest of your argument.

 

It sure meant something more to the schoolgirls who screamed their young lives to cinders than Joe's picky,pointless pedandtry and Elpus' (please 'Elpus), mitigation

 

15 girls burn when they could have been saved you say bugger all about it and I'm the bigot!

 

The Mutaween were authorised (that's the difference), to lock these girls in. It is what they were required and empowered to do. They bear the responsibility for these completely avoidable deaths.

 

Your

 

"The Word

The clergy

The congregation"

could make for a good debate though. We could start in Glasgow.

Edited October 19, 2011 by CheshireTom

[joekicker 53]

Firstly don't presume for yourself the right to pass judgement. Being 'right' or 'wrong' in your eyes doesn't make me either.

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

Either way you feel this exonerates Islam as a religion from all responsibility. Islam as a religion is not in anyway pertinent to the argument. I disagree.

 

Don't mind-read me. Okay? Fair enough?

 

I didn't mention exonerate. I have no idea how you even arrived at that. I wrote what I meant, I meant what I wrote. No interpreation seemed necessary and still doesn't, but IF you want interpretation, you can ask and I may do my best. Fair enough? Okay, then.

 

The only thing I wrote, because it's the only thing I have to say about your aggressively argumentative interpretation of this case of the school girls is that Islam (and Muslims) don't condone the action you claim happened. And wouldn't, even if it did happen that way. Again, I don't know why that has to be interpreted or expanded. You say (the BBC says) twisted old men tried to prevent the girls from escaping the fire. And I said and say that's entirely possible. Twisted old men (ESPECIALLY twisted old men, although not exclusively) are always doing stuff they think God tells them to do.

 

See, that doesn't involve or implicate the religion any more than the American Nazi Party's support implicate nidnoyham's nice "Occupy" protesters in the New York and other parks. The religion (and the protesters) isn't under any obligation to even NOTICE those twisted people who claim to act in their name. Islam can't be exonerated because it's not involved. The Occupy Wall Street mob can't be exonerated from the Nazi support, same thing.

 

The religions are responsible for what they do, of course, Islam included.

 

You let Islam off Scott-free. No half measures.....You let all religions off Scott free, for every one of history's religious bloodbaths. Perverted

 

Oh fer.... You know, for someone who started your post with a finger-pointing lecture about presuming, you sure do a lot of presuming. And I repeat, you are some kind of Olympic-quality leaper - to conclusions. How do you get from here:

 

- I say that Islam is not responsible for school girls trapped in the fire you postulated.

 

to here:

 

- You presume that I don't blame religions for any action in history, ever. Even though I never mentioned this, and you never mentioned this, and you didn't even ASK me about one, several or all such events.

 

You present a specific, one-off story about barbecued school girls, and then my remarks about that unique, partly true story apply to all religions, all the time. How did you do that?

 

Would you not say you are presuming for yourself the right to pass judgement? Just a tiny tad?

 

.

[atlas2 4,329]

 

 

I can't name ANOTHER religion because you can't name ONE, and that's because there isn't one religion in the first place. No religion in the world does or might or would tolerate any such thing. There isn't one. So there certainly can't be another one. And so you're right, I can't name ANOTHER one.

 

.

 

Not exactly a leap of olympic standards.

[atlas2 4,329]

You claim their religion somehow.... condones the killings. But it doesn't. NO religion does, or would.

 

And again. Because these creeps say God made them do it, therefore Islam condones it. That's Olympic-class leaping. Why stop there?

 

So, in a way -- it's kind of like God made the pious priests paw the kids and Buddha blessed the Thai cops who chained girls to the bed before the fire and Shiva stands guard for corrupt Indian politicians. The religion is responsible for the actions of its believers.

 

 

Their religions didn't do any of those and don't do any of those that occur today and tomorrow, either. Including killing school girls. And the religions don't condone them, not one of them.

 

 

There is no second religion that condones ANY of this stuff, because there isn't ONE religion in the first place. You were right the second time, and wrong the first and third - it IS a matter of humanity - and of law/justice. Nothing to do with the religion of these sick old men or thousands like them in history and today.

 

 

.

 

 

Maybe a leap of kindergarten standard.

Edited October 19, 2011 by atlas2