These young girls travelling to Syria

[viv1969]

Interesting to note that for 2011 there were 12644 murders in the US.

How many were committed in the name of (insert fictional deity here)?
How many were accompanied by a call to arms for all the whackjobs of the world to rise up and defeat the sane infidels?

Not quite the same thing

 

[dejongj]

It is something always brought up in these kind of discussions. A huge difference here is that faith take a centre role. Heck the clue is in the name isn't it

A bunch of nutters (in my personal opinion of course) are "stealing" that faith, yet the millions of other followers are just standing by and letting them do it. It is that latter perception that I just don't understand.

However I seems that it is actually worse, whilst the majority don't seem to support the methods being used, they do seem to support the principles and the why. That is the dangerous part in my opinion. The moderates are letting them get on with it, a compromise will be reached at some point and a version will become part of everyday life.

I do not belief that these things just happen, and that the lack of uprising against them from within is not visible.

 

[Phil V]

... Why should 'they' (many of whom are as British as you (?) or I) speak to 'us', why should it be us who make the first move if you feel they're insular?

As for 'not knowing it therefore not trusting it'... well yes, you've pretty much highlighted the problem. Although I'd suggest that's a problem with our outlook of the world, not theirs. Xenophobia.

...

Great post, but I have to point out, we're not all Londoners

I live in a strange world (the North) where people happily strike up conversations with strangers on buses, in supermarket queues etc. It doesn't matter if they're brown, white or green, the only way to make 'living together and understanding each other' work is for us all to put that tiny bit of effort in.

 

[kendo1]

How many were committed in the name of (insert fictional deity here)?
How many were accompanied by a call to arms for all the whackjobs of the world to rise up and defeat the sane infidels?

Not quite the same thing

That's not what I was getting at.
My point is, if you had bothered to think about it, that the same year figures were quoted for - when 12,533 terrorist murders were committed worldwide- there were 12.644 murders committed in the USA alone.

Edited to not imply Ruth posted the figures

 

[dejongj]

Great post, but I have to point out, we're not all Londoners

I live in a strange world (the North) where people happily strike up conversations with strangers on buses, in supermarket queues etc. It doesn't matter if they're brown, white or green, the only way to make 'living together and understanding each other' work is for us all to put that tiny bit of effort in.

Perhaps try come down to the beautiful South and you'll see it is not that different lot of friendly people like me who talk and engage with anyone. Heck many of us even speak multiple languages.

 

[Phil V]

Perhaps try come down to the beautiful South and you'll see it is not that different lot of friendly people like me who talk and engage with anyone. Heck many of us even speak multiple languages.

heresy
There's no good can come of it.
If 'foreigners' cant understand me I just shout louder and more slowly. It's kept me going this far.

 

[viv1969]

That's not what I was getting at.
My point is, if you had bothered to think about it, that the same year you quoted figures for - when 12,533 terrorist murders were committed worldwide- there were 12.644 murders committed in the USA alone.

I didn't quote any figures

 

[kendo1]

I didn't quote any figures

Apologies! I got you confused with someone else. But the rest still stands

Found it- Ian was the one quoting figures on page 17.

 

[andya700]

well ironically the Shia militias in iraq are now officially the good guys (ironic because US and UK troops spent quite some time fighting them in 2003/4 - this is classic the enemy of my enemy is my friend stuff)

Well Pete, as Iraq is 65% Shia, and it was the Shia being attacked and slaughtered by Saddam Hussein and the Sunni MINORITY, didn't anyone think that post invasion those Shia may have wanted to carry out some revenge attacks?
The only reason that the US/UK were fighting them, was because the US in particular didn't want any ties between Iraq and Iran, which is a bit strange as they are neighbouring countries with a lot in common.

1953 - CIA/MI6 organise a coup and overthrow the democratically elected PM Mossadeq in Iran, and put in place their puppet dictator, Reza Shah Pahlavi.
1979 - After 26 years of enduring killings and tortures by the Shah's regime (backed by US, UK and Israel), Iran has a revolution, the Shah runs away, and the US embassy (CIA HQ in the Middle East/Asia) is overrun and hostages taken. The US are very p****d off about this.
1981 - The US backs Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, where millions are killed, and where Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian troops.
1979 - 1989 - War in Afghanistan. The US poured $billions into arming the Mujahadeen (later the Taliban) against the Soviets, in the full knowledge of the atrocities committed by them against civilians, and the destruction of World Heritage sites.
1998 - 11 Iranians including 8 diplomats murdered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In response, Iran had 70,000 troops on the Afghanistan border and were ready to advance, but the UN led by the US coerced them into abandoning their attack.
2001 - Following the Al Qaeda attacks on the Trade Centre in New York, the US led coalition bombs and invades Afghanistan, and sets about fighting the Taliban and installing a puppet government in Kabul - Hamid Karzai.
2003 - US led coalition invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, on the basis that he had WMD and could attack us withing 45 minutes. The US disbanded the Iraqi army, destroyed most of the infrastructure - the oil ministry was left untouched, and millions of Iraqi citizens were displaced.

 

[andya700]

Please explain?

You go off at a tangent to try to draw comparisons.
You seem to think that your imaginery 4000 Congoloese (who have no links to this country) being dumped in the UK, is the same as the UK dumping Abu Hamza back in the UAE where he was born and where he was a citizen.
Apples and oranges.

 

[andya700]

Are there any other kinds of Muslims you don't like?

What kind of a question is that? It doesn't begin to make sense.
Just because someone draws attention to a report (which may or may not be totally accurate) detailing the fact that Sunni Muslims have been responsible for a great many terrorist attacks in the last three years (something which I also believe to be true), it doesn't mean that the poster dislikes all Muslims.
The FACT is, that for the past three years - and probably longer, Sunni extremists - Al Qaeda, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Nusra etc - who all follow the Wahhabi branch of Islam, have been responsible for more terrorist attacks around the World.

 

[andya700]

I think we're more or less on the same page, there's just a difference of perception.

Most Muslims still wear Jeans and sweatshirts, it's just that, because of media hype, you only see the ones in traditional dress.

"They" live more in the same streets as us than ever before, although ghetoisation is a long standing, global phenomenon.

Interestingly, traditional clothing is more popular in Muslim countries than previously. Compare photos of Cairo, for example, from the 70s to now.

Oh, it's not about oil.

It's about global influence

In certain communities, that may be true of the males, but for females in closed, conservative families (of which there are many up and down the UK, and particularly abroad from North Africa across the Middle East to Malaysia and Indonesia), the reverse is true. They are sadly controlled by a culture which forces them to adopt the Hejab.

 

[kendo1]

Are there any other kinds of Muslims you don't like?

...I'm not partial to Americans


Does that follow from me quoting murder figures from the US?

 

[Sam B]

You go off at a tangent to try to draw comparisons.
You seem to think that your imaginery 4000 Congoloese (who have no links to this country) being dumped in the UK, is the same as the UK dumping Abu Hamza back in the UAE where he was born and where he was a citizen.
Apples and oranges.

No, Andy, I'm not going off on a tangent. So far, I have tried to explain something without coming across as patronising but, for some reason, you're still stuck on my chosen example of the Congolese. Although I have already explained what I thought was obvious, I will do so again...

In post #617 you wrote:

...I personally think that if a person declares allegience to a particular state, then they should be deported there, but again unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) Islamic Sate is not a recognised state.

I tried to explain - again - that you cannot simply deport someone to country 'X' based on them having declared some kind of allegiance to country 'X'. I tried to explain this using one of the most obscure countries I could think of at the time in a hope that the obscurity would illustrate their irrelevance to us; in a similar way to how any other self-respecting country would see our belief that 'X' is their problem because if A: 'X' was born there once upon a time but is no longer a citizen, B: 'X' fancies living there because there are other people who share his/her belief living there, C: 'X' looks Arab so he'd fit in there, D: Our Britannic Majesty...yadda yadda... believes 'X' as family roots in country X, therefore X must relocate there... or whatever reason. You can't just 'dump' people on the doorsteps of other countries expecting them to take them in. In a similar way to that 'British tourist' who shouts and speaks slower to a 'foreigner' on holiday who doesn't speak English, many of us have this Anglocentric belief that the rest of the world must cater for us and do what we wish... the same goes for dumping those who don't 'play well with others'.

So as I have already said in previous posts; you can trade 'The People's Republic of the Congo' to another country if it makes it easier. It doesn't matter.

Secondly. I felt it as being too picky to mention it earlier, but your "FACT" that Abu Hamza was born in the UAE appears to be wrong. He was born in Egypt. Well, at least that's what I was led to believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11701269

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/abu-hamza-found-guilty-terrorism-charges

The problem is with using Wikipedia as a source of information is anyone can edit it. It's unreliable.

So again, please explain 'Apples and oranges'?

Regards, Sam

EDIT: I'm not sure why there is a link to a film in my text body?

 

[Sam B]

What kind of a question is that? It doesn't begin to make sense.
Just because someone draws attention to a report (which may or may not be totally accurate) detailing the fact that Sunni Muslims have been responsible for a great many terrorist attacks in the last three years (something which I also believe to be true), it doesn't mean that the poster dislikes all Muslims.
The FACT is, that for the past three years - and probably longer, Sunni extremists - Al Qaeda, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Nusra etc - who all follow the Wahhabi branch of Islam, have been responsible for more terrorist attacks around the World.

Hi Andy,

If you read through the subsequent posts, that comment is explained.

I'd be careful writing 'fact' in capital letter, particularly if you're still clicking away on Wikipedia.

Regards, Sam

 

[Phil V]

...

1953 - CIA/MI6 organise a coup and overthrow the democratically elected PM Mossadeq in Iran, and put in place their puppet dictator, Reza Shah Pahlavi.
1979 - After 26 years of enduring killings and tortures by the Shah's regime (backed by US, UK and Israel), Iran has a revolution, the Shah runs away, and the US embassy (CIA HQ in the Middle East/Asia) is overrun and hostages taken. The US are very p****d off about this.
1981 - The US backs Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, where millions are killed, and where Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian troops.
1979 - 1989 - War in Afghanistan. The US poured $billions into arming the Mujahadeen (later the Taliban) against the Soviets, in the full knowledge of the atrocities committed by them against civilians, and the destruction of World Heritage sites.
1998 - 11 Iranians including 8 diplomats murdered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In response, Iran had 70,000 troops on the Afghanistan border and were ready to advance, but the UN led by the US coerced them into abandoning their attack.
2001 - Following the Al Qaeda attacks on the Trade Centre in New York, the US led coalition bombs and invades Afghanistan, and sets about fighting the Taliban and installing a puppet government in Kabul - Hamid Karzai.
2003 - US led coalition invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, on the basis that he had WMD and could attack us withing 45 minutes. The US disbanded the Iraqi army, destroyed most of the infrastructure - the oil ministry was left untouched, and millions of Iraqi citizens were displaced.

And what's wrong with the modern world, with the desire for a simple problem/simple solution approach, is that if you try to tell people 'we started it' you're just accused of being 'an apologist' or that you don't have a clue because you've never had to do the fighting etc.

I'm far from an apologist, I could wipe the bastards out just for the destruction of ancient sites. However, we can't pretend that this particular bunch of bastards aren't of our creation. You reap what you sow and all that. And the most idiotic stance of world politics is the ridiculous 'the enemy of my enemy is my ally', which gave us all of this, the Cold war, the subsequent Balkan wars ad infinitum.

 

[Sam B]

...I'm not partial to Americans


Does that follow from me quoting murder figures from the US?

If the topic was on Americans and you had cherry-picked some dubious 'stats' then yes, I probably would have made a similar tongue-in-cheek comment.

 

[Sam B]

In certain communities, that may be true of the males, but for females in closed, conservative families (of which there are many up and down the UK, and particularly abroad from North Africa across the Middle East to Malaysia and Indonesia), the reverse is true. They are sadly controlled by a culture which forces them to adopt the Hejab.

If a woman wants to wear a hijab then I don't know why it should be of any concern to anyone else? If there are some ultra-strict families who "force" a female family member to wear a hijab then I imagine there are comparable examples in traditional British households... over-protective dads 'banning' skirts above the knee and low-cut tops. So what? Personally, I think those who rattle on about the hijab and/or burka etc. are fishing for reasons to force 'them' to adopt our way of dressing. Fashion police, if you will. I honestly don't know why it bothers people? I've heard knuckle-dragging morons mock the hijab but they seem to forget that the Virgin Mary (who they don't seem to have issues with) wore a hijab too.

 

[kendo1]

Re my previous post-
How many billions of dollars/pounds/euros are being spent on trying to stop terrorism?
Consider the similar numbers killed (from previous post) - how many dollars are being spent in the US to stop murders in the US?
... and then there are the other countries with terrible murder rates- Brazil, South Africa...
There does not seem to be any consistency to countries' reactions/responses.

When I become World Leader...

 

[kendo1]

If a woman wants to wear a hijab then I don't know why it should be of any concern to anyone else? If there are some ultra-strict families who "force" a female family member to wear a hijab then I imagine there are comparable examples in traditional British households... over-protective dads 'banning' skirts above the knee and low-cut tops. So what? Personally, I think those who rattle on about the hijab and/or burka etc. are fishing for reasons to force 'them' to adopt our way of dressing. Fashion police, if you will. I honestly don't know why it bothers people? I've heard knuckle-dragging morons mock the hijab but they seem to forget that the Virgin Mary (who they don't seem to have issues with) wore a hijab too.

You're right.
It seems to be a belief in, probably, mainly Western societies that the hijab/burka is being forced to be worn. In some cases it probably is, but not in all cases. There are, of course, countries where it is required- Saudi Arabia for example.

 

[dejongj]

Re my previous post-
How many billions of dollars/pounds/euros are being spent on trying to stop terrorism?
Consider the similar numbers killed (from previous post) - how many dollars are being spent in the US to stop murders in the US?
... and then there are the other countries with terrible murder rates- Brazil, South Africa...
There does not seem to be any consistency to countries' reactions/responses.

When I become World Leader...

Plenty is being spent on national security be it federal or state level. Plenty of websites out there that have the answers in which ever way you would like it. It is no secret nor some great cover up.

Now in comparison, ask yourself the question. What would the damage to the economy be for one plane to come out of the sky. You know, only a few hundred dead ...remaining within the contextual language not necessarily my views, but what about the knock on affect?

 

[dejongj]

You're right.
It seems to be a belief in, probably, mainly Western societies that the hijab/burka is being forced to be worn. In some cases it probably is, but not in all cases. There are, of course, countries where it is required- Saudi Arabia for example.

I couldn't care less what someone wears. I don't like it if anyone is forced but doubt that today that is be fast majority. If anything there are a number of rebellious examples where one could consider it is being worn to invoke a reaction. Anyway ... I would want the right not to serve anyone I cannot look in the face if I so desire. Further more I would appreciate it that no exceptions are made in formal circumstances at extra expense to the tax payer. Choices always come with consequences. As long as it isn't onesided then their wouldn't be a problem with it.

 

[kendo1]

Plenty is being spent on national security be it federal or state level. Plenty of websites out there that have the answers in which ever way you would like it. It is no secret nor some great cover up.

Now in comparison, ask yourself the question. What would the damage to the economy be for one plane to come out of the sky. You know, only a few hundred dead ...remaining within the contextual language not necessarily my views, but what about the knock on affect?

There are knock-on effects to 'everyday' murders too- I'm sure a victim's family and friends are affected emotionally and financially. The knock-on effect of terrorism is the 'terrorism effect', which is what is intended by the terrorists.

The 'terrorism effect' I would say, apart from the human cost, is an attempt to scare a population, drive a wedge between different religious sects and religions (Sunni and Shia or Muslim/ Christian spring to mind) or/and destabalise a region/country, to name a few.

 

[andya700]

Hi Andy,

If you read through the subsequent posts, that comment is explained.

I'd be careful writing 'fact' in capital letter, particularly if you're still clicking away on Wikipedia.

Regards, Sam

I don't need to click on Wikipedia Sam, because I have been studying the Middle East, Iran, Israel and Islamic extremism for the past twenty years. I have been to the Middle East several times and have friends and family there.

Now, please tell me where you get your (mis)information from.

 

[dejongj]

There are knock-on effects to 'everyday' murders too- I'm sure a victim's family and friends are affected emotionally and financially. The knock-on effect of terrorism is the 'terrorism effect', which is what is intended by the terrorists.

The 'terrorism effect' I would say, apart from the human cost, is an attempt to scare a population, drive a wedge between different religious sects and religions (Sunni and Shia or Muslim/ Christian spring to mind) or/and destabalise a region/country, to name a few.

I guess we disagree to such an extend it doesn't matter what one and another say. To me it is a reality, a reality much greater than the general public can imagine. The plots thwarted you hear about are the tip of the iceberg.

 

[andya700]

If a woman wants to wear a hijab then I don't know why it should be of any concern to anyone else?

I will not bother with the rest of the post because to be honest with you it is ridiculous, saying that the Virgin Mary (who may or may not have existed - I do mean Mary, not the whole "Virgin" bit) wore a hejab over two thousand years ago.
I would dearly like to hope that the World has moved on in two thousand years, but events in the Middle East reveal a totally different picture.
I think that you will find that even in the UK, most girls and women from certain (Sunni Wahhabi) Moslem families have no choice over what they wear, as long as they stay within that family.
If you go to the Middle East, North Africa (now large parts of Central Africa as well), Indonesia, Malaysia, then there varying degrees of what a woman is ALLOWED to wear in public.
Hejab is the catch all term for female Islamic dress, so in Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya (at the moment), the women will get away with wearing a headscarf and loose fitting clothing which covers their arms and legs.
In Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States), it is common to see nearly all women wearing the burkha, usually black, covering the entire body including the head.
In parts of Pakistan and most of Afghanistan, the women have to wear the niqab, which is again a full body/head covering, with the addition that you cannot see the face/eyes.
The women have no choice in these matters, as the laws were drafted by men, via interpretations of the Koran by other men.
So, Sam, you really think that a woman would choose to wear a burkha/hejab in 40C heat?

 

[Sam B]

I don't need to click on Wikipedia Sam, because I have been studying the Middle East, Iran, Israel and Islamic extremism for the past twenty years. I have been to the Middle East several times and have friends and family there.

Now, please tell me where you get your (mis)information from.

Then maybe you need to brush-up on your knowledge. You claimed (on a few occasions) that Abu Hamza was born in the UAE. He wasn't. I have provided links for you regarding this which you have chosen to ignore.

As for 'I don't need to click on Wikipedia'; evidently you do. This is why you stated the following information AND even provided your source which, sadly, was Wikipedia. You also chose to write 'FACT' as if that typeset was going to add more weight to your claim which of course was nonsense.

The problem is, that unlike these girls (as Ruth has correctly pointed out) Abu Hamza was not born in the UK, he is from the UAE originally, and if it had been up to me, I would have put him in a Hercules, flown over UAE and dumped him out the cargo door.

I personally think that if a person declares allegience to a particular state, then they should be deported there, but again unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) Islamic Sate is not a recognised state.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri [/QUOTE]

Frankly, for someone who claims to have 'studied the Middle East' - or studied anything, for that matter - for twenty years, I'm surprised your using Wikipedia to back up your claims.

As for my information; of course, which piece in particular?

Sam

 

[kendo1]

I guess we disagree to such an extend it doesn't matter what one and another say. To me it is a reality, a reality much greater than the general public can imagine. The plots thwarted you hear about are the tip of the iceberg.

I don't see where we disagree?
I also don't doubt that things happen that the public don't hear about.

 

[andya700]

Then maybe you need to brush-up on your knowledge. You claimed (on a few occasions) that Abu Hamza was born in the UAE. He wasn't. I have provided links for you regarding this which you have chosen to ignore.

As for 'I don't need to click on Wikipedia'; evidently you do. This is why you stated the following information AND even provided your source which, sadly, was Wikipedia. You also chose to write 'FACT' as if that typeset was going to add more weight to your claim which of course was nonsense.

Many apologies, I was wrong about that, but I stand by my earlier assertion that he should be sent back to the country of his birth - Egypt.
Feel free to pick holes in anything else you wish.

 

[Sam B]

I will not bother with the rest of the post because to be honest with you it is ridiculous, saying that the Virgin Mary (who may or may not have existed - I do mean Mary, not the whole "Virgin" bit) wore a hejab over two thousand years ago.
I would dearly like to hope that the World has moved on in two thousand years, but events in the Middle East reveal a totally different picture.
I think that you will find that even in the UK, most girls and women from certain (Sunni Wahhabi) Moslem families have no choice over what they wear, as long as they stay within that family.
If you go to the Middle East, North Africa (now large parts of Central Africa as well), Indonesia, Malaysia, then there varying degrees of what a woman is ALLOWED to wear in public.
Hejab is the catch all term for female Islamic dress, so in Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya (at the moment), the women will get away with wearing a headscarf and loose fitting clothing which covers their arms and legs.
In Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States), it is common to see nearly all women wearing the burkha, usually black, covering the entire body including the head.
In parts of Pakistan and most of Afghanistan, the women have to wear the niqab, which is again a full body/head covering, with the addition that you cannot see the face/eyes.
The women have no choice in these matters, as the laws were drafted by men, via interpretations of the Koran by other men.
So, Sam, you really think that a woman would choose to wear a burkha/hejab in 40C heat?

I spoke of the 'Virgin Mary' to identify the person I was referring to. I do the same for the Prophet Mohammed - Neither handle should suggest to all but the most childish that I either thought Mary was a virgin (or even existed) nor a historical character named Mohammed was a prophet of God. To be honest, that was quite a disappointing to start to your post. Secondly, it was the Middle East - It was then, as it is now, common for females outside of childhood to wear a veil or 'hijab' as it is called in Arabic.

As for Jewish women, there is clear evidence that in the first century they covered their heads not only for prayer but whenever they were outside of their own home. It is said that some Jewish women kept themselves covered at all times. In public, they not only covered their heads, but the lower part of their faces as well. For the women this was a matter of morals, and a religious duty, not merely a matter of style or convenience. Joachim Jeremias describes the Jewish custom.

I've taken this from some Bible researchig site. If you prefer, I'm sure you can easily Google up other sources. To be honest, I'm surprised you hadn't come across this before in your studies.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html

Anyway, although you decided to be silly and go off on one about the 'Virgin Mary', my point was that there are knuckle-dragging morons which exist which mock Muslim women but fail to see that the Vi... - sorry - 'Mary who was reported to live around 2000 years ago, had a husband called Joseph and a son named Jesus' also wore one too. If you believe in the historical figure of Jesus, I'm guessing you think he had blonde hair and blue eyes too?

A hijab is a veil which covers the head and some of the chest... yes, I know. You seem to have packed your post out with 'facts' which pose no relevance to your argument. As for women wearing a full head-to-toe (very loose-fitting and thin material, I might add) covering; men don't wear shorts as a traditional dress and many men wear a heavy turban (no, not a Sikh turban)... and have a bloody great big beard... I bet that's a trifle warm too. Maybe we should 'liberate' them?

'Women have no choice in the matter' - that is a massive claim to make of which you will struggle to find anything to support it. I bet I can go around asking Muslim women if they're being forced to wear a veil and very few - if any - will answer in the positive.

Either way, why are YOU bothered about what Muslim women wear? How does it concern or affect you in your day-to-day life?

Sam

 

[dejongj]

Funnily enough I've already mentioned that part Sam B.

You also forgot that for Catholic women it was and is in certain places also normal to cover up as a sign of respect when entering a church.

Don't forget it is the 20th century. It's already been proven by the security services that we are talking about sexually frustrated men. And considering how these young women are behaving it seems they are the same and want to be shared out. So considering that is happening at a grant scale in the international Muslim community then perhaps it is not so far fetched to imagine many are suppressed and have actually different desires than their elders deem good for them. Naturally all such morals go away when it is for their own benefit both for the jihad and with regards to the "trash" right here in the UK.

I suggest to stop apologising and open ones eyes and see what is really happening. But then again perhaps you are sympathetic to it and this will view it very differently.

 

[andya700]

I spoke of the 'Virgin Mary' to identify the person I was referring to. I do the same for the Prophet Mohammed - Neither handle should suggest to all but the most childish that I either thought Mary was a virgin (or even existed) not a historical character named Mohammed was a prophet of God. To be honest, that was quite a disappointing to start to your post. Secondly, it was the Middle East - It was then, as it is now, common for females outside of childhood to wear a veil or 'hijab' as it is called in Arabic.

As for Jewish women, there is clear evidence that in the first century they covered their heads not only for prayer but whenever they were outside of their own home. It is said that some Jewish women kept themselves covered at all times. In public, they not only covered their heads, but the lower part of their faces as well. For the women this was a matter of morals, and a religious duty, not merely a matter of style or convenience. Joachim Jeremias describes the Jewish custom.

I've taken this from some Bible researchig site. If you prefer, I'm sure you can easily Google up other sources. To be honest, I'm surprised you hadn't come across this before in your studies.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html

Anyway, although you decided to be silly and go off on one about the 'Virgin Mary', my point was that there are knuckle-dragging morons which exist which mock Muslim women but fail to see that the Vi... - sorry - 'Mary who was reported to live around 2000 years ago, had a husband called Joseph and a son named Jesus' also wore one too. If you people in the historical figure of Jesus, I'm guessing you think he had blonde hair any blue eyes too?

A hijab is a veil which covers the head and some of the chest... yes, I know. You seem to have packed your post out with 'facts' which pose no relevance to your argument. As for women wearing a full head-to-toe (very loose-fitting and thin material, I might add) covering; men don't wear shorts as a traditional dress and many men wear a heavy turban (no, not a Sikh turban)... and have a bloody great big beard... I bet that's a trifle warm too. Maybe we should 'liberate' them?

'Women have no choice in the matter' - that is a massive claim to make of which you will struggle to find anything to support it. I bet I can go around asking Muslim women if they're being forced to wear a veil and very few - if any - will answer in the positive.

Either way, why are YOU bothered about what Muslim women wear? How does it concern or affect you in your day-to-day life?

Sam

You were the one who mentioned a "mythical figure" from 2000 years ago. As for the possibly "mythical" Jesus, I used to question why his eyes were blue and he had blonde hair, when I was in primary school - never did get any sensible answers from the "adults" who were brainwashing - sorry, teaching me.
I stand by the fact that many women from a certain background have no choice about wearing Hejab.
I think a woman's answer about "wearing the veil" would be different depending on the circumstances, whether her husband was present, whether or not she could be identified.
I suggest that you start with going to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and asking the women there if they choose to wear the veil, do they choose to not work, do they choose to go outside their house - only if they are accompanied by a male relative.
I think in a "modern" World we should all be bothered about equal rights for women.

 

[Sam B]

Many apologies, I was wrong about that, but I stand by my earlier assertion that he should be sent back to the country of his birth - Egypt.
Feel free to pick holes in anything else you wish.

Ok, so we can agree on that then.

Now, if Abu Hamza had dual citizenship, or a dual passport, then yes, Egypt can have him. However, if he didn't then I can't see why / how we can expect Egypt to take him. Cliff Richard was born in India... I don't know whether he has 'dual citizenship' or an Indian passport too (I don't know why he would) but, either way, I doubt we could palm him off to India as being 'their problem'. My argument isn't that I disagree so much with banishing people as such, it was kind of centred around the reality of things; you can't just palm people off to countries willy-nilly. That was essence of my Congolese example.

That said, you gave Abu Hamza as a specific example. At the time, it was mentioned by a few members (*possibly* you too... I can't be bothered to look back know), that people should be deported to countries which they have proclaimed some kind of allegiance to. Again, I refer you to my Congolese example.

Lastly, and back to Hamza... Yes, the Article 8 of the HRA made things awkward (I believe this was what someone had quoted) BUT it is there to protect 'us', the people. It wasn't there to allow terrorism. However, as any good lawyer would do, they seek loopholes for their client. Now, if said Article was used in his defence, then those seeking extradition need to make a better case to get him out. I know this is a pain but without trial and due process, it weakens laws (or whatever) which are there to protect regular folk. The same goes for internal Acts and Laws... the Government are always trying to make 'buts' and 'what ifs' to existing laws (to protect the people), in general, to screw us over. A bit like the US holding people at Guantanamo Bay... yes, they're probably wrong'uns but they should be trialed and have it proven... not just bend the rules to suit. That of course is a completely different subject.

Sam

 

[Sam B]

You were the one who mentioned a "mythical figure" from 2000 years ago. As for the possibly "mythical" Jesus, I used to question why his eyes were blue and he had blonde hair, when I was in primary school - never did get any sensible answers from the "adults" who were brainwashing - sorry, teaching me.
I stand by the fact that many women from a certain background have no choice about wearing Hejab.
I think a woman's answer about "wearing the veil" would be different depending on the circumstances, whether her husband was present, whether or not she could be identified.
I suggest that you start with going to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and asking the women there if they choose to wear the veil, do they choose to not work, do they choose to go outside their house - only if they are accompanied by a male relative.
I think in a "modern" World we should all be bothered about equal rights for women.

Andy, this is starting to get embarrassing. I feel you're one step away from simply picking up your ball and going home in protest.

Listen, the debate is about religion (the 'hijab isn't religious, it's cultural' I hear you cry) and what many Muslim women choose to wear as a head covering. As the topic was about religion, I decided to speak of some EDL-type cretins I heard mocking women who wear the hijab... the point being that many of them fail to realise that the woman pictured in many Biblical scenes within a religion which they deem as 'acceptable' or a 'good old C of E... best in the world', wore what is essentially a hijab. Whether or not the 'Virgin Mary', 'Jesus' or anyone else existed is irrelevant. If they believe they did, and Mary wore a veil, it's relevant.

However, I provided evidence for the veil... I can only presume that - Mary or no Mary - you're satisfied that Jewish women were wearing veils 2000 years ago? Or do you have something on Wikipedia for me?

I'm still waiting for the evidence telling me that all these Muslim women who are wearing a hijab, veil, burka or whatever are doing so under duress.

 

[Sam B]

Funnily enough I've already mentioned that part Sam B.

You also forgot that for Catholic women it was and is in certain places also normal to cover up as a sign of respect when entering a church.

Don't forget it is the 20th century. It's already been proven by the security services that we are talking about sexually frustrated men. And considering how these young women are behaving it seems they are the same and want to be shared out. So considering that is happening at a grant scale in the international Muslim community then perhaps it is not so far fetched to imagine many are suppressed and have actually different desires than their elders deem good for them. Naturally all such morals go away when it is for their own benefit both for the jihad and with regards to the "trash" right here in the UK.

I suggest to stop apologising and open ones eyes and see what is really happening. But then again perhaps you are sympathetic to it and this will view it very differently.

Hi,

Yes you're right, I'm sure head coverings are used in many religions but, as I'm not religions, none of it bothers me. People can wear grizzly bear costumes as far as I'm concerned. However, for some reason people choose to moan about the hijab under the guise of 'equality for women'. These are the same people who moan about Halal food as being 'cruel and inhumane' but are absolutely clueless about the pain, misery and demise of the animal used to make their burgers, turkey dinosaurs or full English. People just seem to search for things to validate their suspicions or disapproval of other people's religions or culture.

As for the three girls going abroad with the sole intention of just getting laid, maybe. Very unlikely in my opinion, but maybe. Who knows?

I'm not quite sure what to make of your last sentence... who's apologising? What's really happening? Just to clarify... I'm not Muslim, Christian or of any other religion... I'm pretty open-minded. Furthermore, I definitely not sympathetic to extremism of any kind (Again, I'm not quite sure what you meant so apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick)

Sam

 

[Phil V]

...

Anyway, although you decided to be silly and go off on one about the 'Virgin Mary', my point was that there are knuckle-dragging morons which exist which mock Muslim women but fail to see that the Vi... - sorry - 'Mary who was reported to live around 2000 years ago, had a husband called Joseph and a son named Jesus' also wore one too. If you people in the historical figure of Jesus, I'm guessing you think he had blonde hair any blue eyes too?

...

Just for a lighthearted reprise:
Tim Minchin tells a story about being approached by a 'redneck' after a gig, who had been offended that Tim had alluded to Jesus' 'arabness' and it was silly that westerners had him as a blue eyed caucasian.

Tim's response that 'well he was born in Palestine, to middle eastern parents' was met with the completely straight faced assertion 'You're forgetting his father is God, and we all know he is a white man'.

 

[kendo1]

... that all these Muslim women who are wearing a hijab, veil, burka or whatever are doing do under duress.

I suspect that is a perception by Western people rather than a fact. But, there are probably exceptions as is the case with most things.

 

[Sam B]

I suspect that is a perception by Western people rather than a fact. But, there are probably exceptions as is the case with most things.

I don't wish to dwell on this much longer, but I remember watching some documentary whereby some Muslim women were saying how 'liberated' the veil made them from social expectations of them... you know, make-up, looking nice, nice skin, glossy hair and the like. Maybe it's like those women who like wearing jeans because they can't be bothered to shave their legs. Who knows?

 

[andya700]

I don't wish to dwell on this much longer, but I remember watching some documentary whereby some Muslim women were saying how 'liberated' the veil made them from social expectations of them... you know, make-up, looking nice, nice skin, glossy hair and the like. Maybe it's like those women who like wearing jeans because they can't be bothered to shave their legs. Who knows?

We will never agree on this Sam, despite the fact that I know from first hand experience how some (I never said all at any point) Muslim women feel about the Hejab (just a headscarf in their case, so they do wear makeup and have their hair done - because they want to), and it isn't with any pleasure.
Just as there are SOME Christians who are very devout and follow the letter of the bible's teachings, there are many others who simply pay lip service to religion.
I do however stick by my beliefs that in certain countries (and in certain communities within the UK) there is no dress freedom from women, they have to do as they are instructed, there is no free will.

I have to say Sam, the more you post, the more it seems that you are an "apologist" for Islamic dress code, and even for the extremists who go off to fight for ISIL, because they may not agree with the way we live in the UK.
However, it doesn't alter the fact that they are murdering people who do not agree with them - they are trying to FORCE people to convert, and these people include totally innocent aid workers from Western countries, who have travelled to Syria to help the poor souls languishing in refugee camps.

Finally, to get back to the point of the original post, I truly believe that anyone who goes to join them for whatever reason (becoming a "warrior bride" falls into this category) deserves everything that happens to them - either over there or when they attempt to return.

 

[andya700]

I don't wish to dwell on this much longer, but I remember watching some documentary whereby some Muslim women were saying how 'liberated' the veil made them from social expectations of them... you know, make-up, looking nice, nice skin, glossy hair and the like. Maybe it's like those women who like wearing jeans because they can't be bothered to shave their legs. Who knows?

Possibly these poor girls had a choice?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

So, 15 girls died, because the "religious police" refused to let them flee a burning building because they did not put their Hejab on.

Please note Sam - I have not linked to Wiki this time.