• 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!

US Military White Paper Describes Wearing Hijab as "Passive Terrorism"

The military has been a petri dish for social engineering for the past 40 years. I lived through some quirky stuff in my 20 years.

I can only imagine what Military Service has been like over the 20 years you mention. It has been a period of significant change, at least from the view we civilians have.
 
[h=1][/h]


So lack of sex leads to Islamic terrorism, and waring the hijab is "passive terrorism"? This guy sounds like he is full of nonsense. Not only does he not explain how he came to conclusions, but its flat out Islamophobia (no wonder he supports Trump). Its shameful that this **** got included in government training material.



This is total BS. How can 'terrorists' be passive?

The U.S. military needs to get its poo-poo together.

Passive people are no threat to anyone.
 
I don't think it is at all. I also don't think a bunch of kids wearing sombreros means they are racist. But that doesn't stop socialist progressives from cheering on the PC Police to put a stop to it.
So your comparing this policy/position promoted in this paper to individuals being upset by Halloween costumes? Your comparison is not even in the same ballpark.

Socialist Progressive are all twisted over the Military suggesting the Hijab equates to "passive terrorism", but are perfectly fine calling out people who wear what they deem to be unacceptable clothing as being "passive racists". Do I need to provide links?
1.)Its not just "socialist progressives"
2.)A religious clothing item that some women decide to wear is not "passive terrorism". Its also incredibly Islamophobic to connect a Islamic headscarve to terrorism.
3.)People dressing up as "blackface", I would describe as racist action as well because its a historical style of entertainment based on racist Black stereotypes. However I would not describe their actions of dressing up as "blackface" an act of terrorism...
4.)Stating that every woman who wears a hijab is guilty of terrorism is like saying every person who wears a cross necklace is guilty of terrorism. Its ****ing moronic.

The Military is over the line on this call,
Yup..

just as the Socialist Progressive Thought Police are over the line with their vile "racism" claims against kids wearing certain types of clothing.
:doh And somehow the boogeymen "thought police" you have made up in your head get drawn into this.
 
So your comparing this policy/position promoted in this paper to individuals being upset by Halloween costumes? Your comparison is not even in the same ballpark.


1.)Its not just "socialist progressives"
2.)A religious clothing item that some women decide to wear is not "passive terrorism". Its also incredibly Islamophobic to connect a Islamic headscarve to terrorism.
3.)People dressing up as "blackface", I would describe as racist action as well because its a historical style of entertainment based on racist Black stereotypes. However I would not describe their actions of dressing up as "blackface" an act of terrorism...
4.)Stating that every woman who wears a hijab is guilty of terrorism is like saying every person who wears a cross necklace is guilty of terrorism. Its ****ing moronic.


Yup..


:doh And somehow the boogeymen "thought police" you have made up in your head get drawn into this.

I didn't mention black face, so you're effort was wasted. But you are proving my observation quite valid.
 
I wouldn't be able to speak directly to the Hijab as an actor, but the sexual frustration I can definitely concur with.

Just like a big chunk of guys enlisting in our Army? I know I was a bit ahhhh 'twitchy' when I was a young man. Just out of curiousity what study did you see that concludes sexual frustration is any sort of motivator of the fighters?

I'd say most young men are horn dogs, no matter the uniform or lack there of... :peace
 
I didn't mention black face, so you're effort was wasted. But you are proving my observation quite valid.

So your position is that people who get offended by some halloween costumes and they claim that some of these costumes are racist are the equivalent of Tawfik Hamid's position that women who wear the hijab are committing a form terrorism?
 
Just like a big chunk of guys enlisting in our Army? I know I was a bit ahhhh 'twitchy' when I was a young man. Just out of curiousity what study did you see that concludes sexual frustration is any sort of motivator of the fighters?

Culturally, lots of sexual deprivation among young men locally, due to the fact that they aren't allowed to generally interact with females, and the populace practices polygamy, along with strict punishment for extra-marital male-female relations. So fewer, older, wealthier males take multiple females a piece, and younger, poorer, angrier males are left with none (it is worth noting that a second result of this is widespread homosexuality in the Arab world, and pederasty in Central Asia).

Among the foreign fighter flow, that's simply who is attracted to the Call - young men who are generally outcasts or who don't fit in well with society in the West. Generally, these are guys who have never held a girls' hand, and now they can pick up Yazidi females for $15 on the local market and finally relieve that pent-up frustration, sexual desire, and (sadly) anger. It's awful for the women (many of whom are still children) involved. :(
 
So your position is that people who get offended by some halloween costumes and they claim that some of these costumes are racist are the equivalent of Tawfik Hamid's position that women who wear the hijab are committing a form terrorism?

I think I've made my opinion rather clear. I'm calling out the hypocrites. You're outraged a military person connects clothing to terrorism. Where is the outrage when someone connects clothing to racism?
 
I think I've made my opinion rather clear. I'm calling out the hypocrites. You're outraged a military person connects clothing to terrorism. Where is the outrage when someone connects clothing to racism?

Because the actual action of equating wearing a hijab to committing an act of terrorism is Islamophobic... You're also not pointing out hypocrisy, your attempting to draw a moral equivalence.
 
Just to throw this out there. Have you ever considered the idea that the act of wearing the hijab could be considered a form of political expression?
 
Because the actual action of equating wearing a hijab to committing an act of terrorism is Islamophobic... You're also not pointing out hypocrisy, your attempting to draw a moral equivalence.

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. The hijab thing was called "passive terrorism". That caught my eye because I've read in claims from the "afflicted" in numerous articles that kids wearing certain clothes is a form of "passive racism".

They are the same thing, despite how much effort you're expending to try and deny it.
 
No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. The hijab thing was called "passive terrorism". That caught my eye because I've read in claims from the "afflicted" in numerous articles that kids wearing certain clothes is a form of "passive racism".

They are the same thing, despite how much effort you're expending to try and deny it.

What exactly makes the wearing of the hijab 'passive terrorism' according to the source you read?
 
I think I've made my opinion rather clear. I'm calling out the hypocrites. You're outraged a military person connects clothing to terrorism. Where is the outrage when someone connects clothing to racism?

The two aren't comparable, dude. Context is a thing.
 
Culturally, lots of sexual deprivation among young men locally, due to the fact that they aren't allowed to generally interact with females, and the populace practices polygamy, along with strict punishment for extra-marital male-female relations. So fewer, older, wealthier males take multiple females a piece, and younger, poorer, angrier males are left with none (it is worth noting that a second result of this is widespread homosexuality in the Arab world, and pederasty in Central Asia). Among the foreign fighter flow, that's simply who is attracted to the Call - young men who are generally outcasts or who don't fit in well with society in the West. Generally, these are guys who have never held a girls' hand, and now they can pick up Yazidi females for $15 on the local market and finally relieve that pent-up frustration, sexual desire, and (sadly) anger. It's awful for the women (many of whom are still children) involved. :(

Still looking for the study you cite... where is this information?

Actually when it comes to European fighters traveling to the ME to fight I'd say the lack of an economic future as well as bigotry that drives them. In France they get a free education but are closed out of the job market, the idea of not fitting in is a double edged sword. Hookers are available in most of Europe, legal in some countries and I highly doubt a young man looking for a 'hand to hold' will not get to do so, just not as much as his hormones would like... ;)

Not to dwell on the sexual activities of Muslim men but didn't you once say gay sex was practiced- for kids a woman for pleasure a boy? I believe a strong biased of 'Western Morality' has to be forced over the real facts to attempt this sort of white paper study. one could opine our highly sexualized culture creates a mass of men who see women only as sex objects and a low morality... :peace
 
WTF is passive terrorism? That is an oxymoron, or changing the meaning of the word 'terrorism'
 
What the hell is the U.S. Air Force doing funding studies on why Jihadists do what they do? Is the Air Force going to drop pornographic pictures instead of bombs on ISIS now - hoping the fighters will be too busy whacking off to want to fight?

Leave psychological understanding of the enemy - who btw, does not even have an Air Force - to the C.I.A. or other forms of government.

The military should stick to miltary training and tactics (strategic/tactical) ONLY...and leave the sex studies to the people whose business it is and who actually have a clue what they are talking about.
 
What the hell is the U.S. Air Force doing funding studies on why Jihadists do what they do? Is the Air Force going to drop pornographic pictures instead of bombs on ISIS now - hoping the fighters will be too busy whacking off to want to fight?

Leave psychological understanding of the enemy - who btw, does not even have an Air Force - to the C.I.A. or other forms of government.

The military should stick to miltary training and tactics (strategic/tactical) ONLY...and leave the sex studies to the people whose business it is and who actually have a clue what they are talking about.

DOD & Congress often uses war colleges, and the military as petri dishes. The Military doesn't have a choice. It provides a easy out for politicians when **** hits the fan with unpopular BS.
 
'Among Hamid’s claims are that support for militancy is primarily a product of sexual deprivation and that terrorism bears relation to religious dress'

What a load of nonsense.

Support for the militancy is due to three primary things...poverty, political repression and Neocon idiocy (American botched foreign policy).

Most of these ding dongs are poor and are from politically repressive countries. They have little hope of wealth are freedom so - out of desperation - they turn to these dumbass movements. Plus, America/the West goes around bombing every thing in sight, propping up corrupt regimes (like Saudi Arabia), killing their friends/families and naturally there is intense resentment.
And it is not Islam's fault. That is utter bunk. There have been many horrible things done in history in the name of Christianity...the Crusades for one. These terrorists just use radical religion as a club/focal point. They look in their God Club textbook (Quran) and find a few passages that can be interpreted in a way that justifies their cause.
You look at the Bible (Christianity's God Club textbook) and you could find passages to justify almost anything...rape, murder, etc..

And save the 'well the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and many of them were from wealthy families.' A - Saudi Arabia is INCREDIBLY repressive and B - the 9/11 attackers WERE NUTS. Anyone who would do such a thing is.

There are TONS of sexually frustrated/repressed men in western society that don't start shooting up their schools...geez, just look at the astounding number of porn sites on the web. Do you think the guys that frequent those places have happy, healthy sex lives?

ISIL is about poverty, political repression, Neocon idiocy (pathetic A,erican foreign policy) and (to a lesser extent) insanity.


You don't agree...you are wrong on this.


Good day.
 
DOD & Congress often uses war colleges, and the military as petri dishes. The Military doesn't have a choice. It provides a easy out for politicians when **** hits the fan with unpopular BS.

You are probably right.

Though I am quite sure you will agree that some in the military hierarchy sometimes get a little power mad and like to assume they can figure everything out all by themselves.
 
Last edited:
Congress is a bigger threat to America than any other group of people - and most of the bastards Congress have obviously never read the Constitution.

Just a few years ago, the new congress opened with members each reading out loud a part of the Constitution. Great theater!

So, I suspect most of them have read it once or twice, and of course all have taken an oath to protect and defend it.

Trouble is most don't give a damn about what it says. They are politicians, and mostly moral midgets.
 
What the hell is the U.S. Air Force doing funding studies on why Jihadists do what they do? Is the Air Force going to drop pornographic pictures instead of bombs on ISIS now - hoping the fighters will be too busy whacking off to want to fight?

Leave psychological understanding of the enemy - who btw, does not even have an Air Force - to the C.I.A. or other forms of government.

The military should stick to miltary training and tactics (strategic/tactical) ONLY...and leave the sex studies to the people whose business it is and who actually have a clue what they are talking about.

Do you remember the scandal at the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs about 10 years ago involving religious activity at the Academy? As I recall the Christians there were essentially marginalizing other religions. Even the staff was involved.

This reminds me of that somehow.
 
eh, bit of a stretch, but only a bit. never forget 9/11.
 
Back
Top Bottom