• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arab group threatens Belgium with terror attacks

bub said:
Well there is also a "ban on walking naked", since being naked in a public space is also considered as shocking. Same for the burqa.
Click to expand...

Well not so much shocking as much as indecent. The laws are with too few clothing, not too much. There shouldn't be a law against too much.
 
bub said:
Well there is also a "ban on walking naked", since being naked in a public space is also considered as shocking. Same for the burqa.
Click to expand...

You can't seriously think that the two things are en par?

Nudity laws have to do with indecent exposure. Burkhas are people covering their bodies for religious purposes, and laws against them are out of line.
 
Orion said:
You can't seriously think that the two things are en par?

Nudity laws have to do with indecent exposure. Burkhas are people covering their bodies for religious purposes, and laws against them are out of line.
Click to expand...

Both are laws about the way you can dress up. And the burqa is unrelated with Islam.
 
Ikari said:
Well not so much shocking as much as indecent. The laws are with too few clothing, not too much.
Click to expand...

In many cases it's forbidden to wear certain clothes: you can't wear a hat in a courthouse for example.
 
bub said:
Both are laws about the way you can dress up.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. One is about the kind of clothing you can wear, and one is about not wearing clothing at all. Nudity is not a form of dress, but the absence thereof.

bub said:
And the burqa is unrelated with Islam.
Click to expand...

Every major religion employs clothing that scripture doesn't talk about. There is certainly nothing in the Bible that tells nuns to dress the way they do, covering their key features. The only difference between that and the burqa is that the burqa covers the face. So what? It's just one step beyond.

It's one thing for those women to be living in Saudi Arabia and forced to cover up; it's quite another for them to be relocating to the (relatively) free world and choosing to dress that way.

If they are entering government buildings, fine, but outside of that, how dare you or anyone else tell them how they can or can't dress.
 
bub said:
well bad news for them, we don't have any government.
Click to expand...


You do now.

I have decided to conquer Belgium, personally and single-handedly, and rename it "Goshinland". I will then spend six months training an elite force of fifty Belgian commandos, with whom I will take over the rest of Europe.

My first act as Master of Europe will be to extend the Burqa ban to all EU nations. In fact, I may ban all clothing on attractive females entirely, except for fur coats in winter. Or I might make Burqas mandatory for females who score an "OMG" on the UglyMeter. Haven't decided yet.

Okay seriously now... could you elaborate on this "Belgium doesn't have a government" thing? I'll admit freely that what I know about Belgium could be written on the back of a matchbook with room left over, but now I'm curious as to what that meant.
 
bub said:
Well there is also a "ban on walking naked", since being naked in a public space is also considered as shocking. Same for the burqa.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but history is extremely clear on the result of attempting to oppress religion. Whether European states see this or not, for Muslims this is oppression. One can certainly believe in freedom, democracy, Depeche Mode, and Coca~Cola and wear a burqa.

This is something that descendants simply place in the closet eventually.....unless it becomes an object in which their parents and themselves can't make the decision on their own. It becomes a symbol of protest. In the end, religious fanatics don't protest a general rule. They protest what they see as robbing them of their identity or challenging them to re-asses their very souls.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Yeah, but history is extremely clear on the result of attempting to oppress religion. Whether European states see this or not, for Muslims this is oppression. One can certainly believe in freedom, democracy, Depeche Mode, and Coca~Cola and wear a burqa.

This is something that descendants simply place in the closet eventually.
Click to expand...

Former Gunny, what is your take on banning burqas or full length religious garb and veils (which is the legislation in question) for security reasons?

I understand how highly unlikely we're to see a hijab, for example, to hide a bomb. But we have clearly seen full length veils cover not just the identity of the wearer, but also explosives and/or weapons.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Former Gunny, what is your take on banning burqas or full length religious garb and veils (which is the legislation in question) for security reasons?

I understand how highly unlikely we're to see a hijab, for example, to hide a bomb. But we have clearly seen full length veils cover not just the identity of the wearer, but also explosives and/or weapons.
Click to expand...

Its about perspective. People in the West see it as an object of oppression and terrorism and therefore face it with negativity. Muslims (as a whole) are on the fence about, but can easily choose to protest over it if they are forced to think one way or another by outsiders.

From a security perspective, it is much like wearing other types of baggy clothing in which explosives and guns can be concealed. It's one of those things where we have to accept as tolerable or face probable back lash from the "faithful." Whether we face a mob or pissed off insulted jack-asses or a single jack-ass with a bomb, we face security issues either way.

But this is everyday life in the civilian world. In the military world, such garb is intolerable and would be subjected to search. No matter the offense, life and death transcends politically correct cozyness. The military has the advantage of not having to cater to hurt feelings. Of course, our military culture translates our boldness into a clear understanding from the wearer. Civilian authorities receive no such respect and have to deal with individuals and their celebrations.
 
MSgt said:
Civilian authorities receive no such respect and have to deal with individuals and their celebrations.
Click to expand...

Celebrations? You mean their legal rights?
 
Orion said:
Celebrations? You mean their legal rights?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And there civil rights. And their feelings. And their lawyers. And their excuses. And their fairness. And their concerns. And their exaggerations. And their deceits. And so on.

The military has a way of cutting through the garbage and calling a spade a spade. We don't have to allow or over look obvious security risks. Civilians don't have this luxury. But the truth of the matter is that for every "victim" of civilian authority there are hundreds of pretenders willing to use their issue just to buck that authority.
 
MSgt said:
Yeah, but history is extremely clear on the result of attempting to oppress religion. Whether European states see this or not, for Muslims this is oppression. One can certainly believe in freedom, democracy, Depeche Mode, and Coca~Cola and wear a burqa.

This is something that descendants simply place in the closet eventually.....unless it becomes an object in which their parents and themselves can't make the decision on their own. It becomes a symbol of protest. In the end, religious fanatics don't protest a general rule. They protest what they see as robbing them of their identity or challenging them to re-asses their very souls.
Click to expand...

"oppress religion"...some things should be forbidden when they are contrary to human rights, even when these things are cultural (burqa is not part of Islam). Examples of "cultural" things that are forbidden in Europe are polygamy and excision.

Secondly, Belgium does not oppress any religion. Do you know other countries that fund immams and allows muslim politicians to enter the parliament with a veil (not a burqa...)?

If you read the arguments given in the lower house (I think I posted a link in this thread) you can clearly see that it has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It's a real concern about the rights of the women. Now you may argue about the rights of women, but don't say that this is an Islamophobic law (it's not even conceivable that 148 members of parliament out of 150 would be islamophobic, for the simple reason that they come from the entire political spectrum, from the most progressists to the most religious-conservatives)
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Exactly. And there civil rights. And their feelings. And their lawyers. And their excuses. And their fairness. And their concerns. And their exaggerations. And their deceits. And so on.
Click to expand...

Your resentment for civilians shines through. Need I remind you who it is you serve?

MSgt said:
The military has a way of cutting through the garbage and calling a spade a spade. We don't have to allow or over look obvious security risks. Civilians don't have this luxury. But the truth of the matter is that for every "victim" of civilian authority there are hundreds of pretenders willing to use their issue just to buck that authority.
Click to expand...

If 100 people have to go free so that the system remains effective enough to prevent one innocent from being thrown away, then that's how it should be. The deployed military doesn't have to conform to that because war zones have fewer rules, which is obviously what you are accustomed to.
 
Orion said:
Your resentment for civilians shines through. Need I remind you who it is you serve?



If 100 people have to go free so that the system remains effective enough to prevent one innocent from being thrown away, then that's how it should be. The deployed military doesn't have to conform to that because war zones have fewer rules, which is obviously what you are accustomed to.
Click to expand...

MSgt is also one of those for whom he serves.
 
The Taliban is not an "Arab" group, they are an Islamic extremist terrorist organization. Honestly I don't think banning the Burkha was the best thing, but I hope Belgium doesn't cave into the interest of these monsters. It just goes to show how they believe they have the right to legislation countries through fear. I don't see any Christian (or other religions) terrorist groups sending tapes to Middle Eastern countries saying they will attack because all non-Muslims are treated like trash and are considered 2nd class citizens. Belgium is not an Islamic theocracy, the Taliban has no right to make a commentary. I hope no attacks are done against the Belgian people.
 
Orion said:
No, they're not. One is about the kind of clothing you can wear, and one is about not wearing clothing at all. Nudity is not a form of dress, but the absence thereof.



Every major religion employs clothing that scripture doesn't talk about. There is certainly nothing in the Bible that tells nuns to dress the way they do, covering their key features. The only difference between that and the burqa is that the burqa covers the face. So what? It's just one step beyond.

It's one thing for those women to be living in Saudi Arabia and forced to cover up; it's quite another for them to be relocating to the (relatively) free world and choosing to dress that way.
Click to expand...

Ya except that they aren't always wearing it voluntarily, their religion tells them that it is ordained by god for men to abuse their wives.
 
Why is it that Muslims do not come out and condemn this crap every time it rears it ugly head?

Why is it that the press doesn't bring some Muslims forward that are against this crap as they haul out Jackson or Sharpton?

The religion of love and peace?
It's more like the religion of the cowering and terrorists.

.
 
zimmer said:
Why is it that Muslims do not come out and condemn this crap every time it rears it ugly head?

Why is it that the press doesn't bring some Muslims forward that are against this crap as they haul out Jackson or Sharpton?

The religion of love and peace?
It's more like the religion of the cowering and terrorists.

.
Click to expand...

why would the press bring out muslims that are against it?

they wouldn't make half as much profit.

how about you talk to some muslims about it and get their opinion, rather than what the media tells you
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
So I guess that used camel dealership won't be much good then?

What do the Taliban like anyway? How would one appease one's new bearded overlords?
Click to expand...
Black turbins?
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Snap!
That is sooooooooooo like, last year!
Click to expand...

Well terrorists are sooooooo like... 15th century in their thinking. 1 year behind might be a good thing in comparison. :mrgreen:
 
ludahai said:
You mean they have advanced a few centuries?
Click to expand...

Perhaps... it's so difficult to discern changes between say the 7th century and the 15th without being a historian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom