The 'Veil'

**attaboy** · 30-10-2006, 10:46 AM

^ I think what Mr. earl is saying is how can they claim a cultural right when there is no evidence of it ever occuring?

**attaboy** · 30-10-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

If you cannot attack the troops because they are too well armed then you attack civilians.
Attacking the tube in London follows the same logic: make England pay a price for getting involved in Iraq.

Originally Posted by stroller

Yes, I can understand the logic, and why they do it, but it doesn't serve any purpose other than retribution, it's pathetically misguided.

Misguided? More like going to any length to get someone's troops out of their region. The difference is that Western societies don't have the stomach for bloodshed (which is why Western armies are destined to fail time and time again in regions of the world where they are neither welcome or fail to win the hearts of the people that are supposedly being liberated).

Do you think the Tube bombing was justified? I need to know before I can discuss this further.

**man with no head** · 30-10-2006, 10:56 AM

In what sense? I don't know about the UK but here people are generally free to practice their religious beliefs as the first rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (no matter how bizarre that might be - try going to Nawlins') until those beliefs become threatening to another person. We tend not to sytematically oppress people simply because of what they wear in regards to their religion.

**attaboy** · 30-10-2006, 11:04 AM

What they do or don't do elsewhere is of no concern to me. What matters is are we going to respect religious beliefs (you know, that pesky thing called the First Amendment....at least we have something resembling a 'damned piece of paper') or are we just shoehorning our bigotry simply because they are Muslim?

That's my question too. What comes first, freedom of speech or religious beliefs? We should be able to lampoon Allah w/o the threat of death.

**man with no head** · 30-10-2006, 11:07 AM

Did any of the Muslims in the U.S. go on killing sprees because of that?

**attaboy** · 30-10-2006, 11:13 AM

Yeah we had some guys run over people with cars but they were loopy to begin with.

The Muslim population in America has integrated well and have no great complaints about their lives here. Although the bs has started with the cabbies prohibiting alcohol in their cars. It looks like the courts will be full of this stuff.

**Little Chuchok** · 30-10-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Propagator

Originally Posted by surasak

Isn't that the reason why people join the military? "To die for your country."

No - You join the military to SERVE your country. I am surprised that no one else has pointed this out.

No, you join the military to be a pawn in someone else's chess game. And if you're really lucky you don't lose a limb, get a brain injury, or come home in a box.

friend of mine joined the army to get educated and to fight......

And lo and behold when little Johnny is expected to fight people actually sue the military because they were expecting a free education without any risk.

Nope,my mate didn't sue anybody.Enjoyed it 100%.Did all the American forces try and sue the government?Boy oh boy, that would clog up the courts....

**Mr Earl** · 30-10-2006, 12:27 PM

deleted because this topic has become tedious

**attaboy** · 30-10-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by surasak

If you cannot attack the troops because they are too well armed then you attack civilians.
Attacking the tube in London follows the same logic: make England pay a price for getting involved in Iraq.

Originally Posted by stroller

Yes, I can understand the logic, and why they do it, but it doesn't serve any purpose other than retribution, it's pathetically misguided.

Misguided? More like going to any length to get someone's troops out of their region. The difference is that Western societies don't have the stomach for bloodshed (which is why Western armies are destined to fail time and time again in regions of the world where they are neither welcome or fail to win the hearts of the people that are supposedly being liberated).

Do you think the Tube bombing was justified? I need to know before I can discuss this further.

*bump*

https://teakdoor.com/issues/7881-the-...tml#post201476

**man with no head** · 30-10-2006, 01:18 PM

I saw it, I don't have a well thought out response yet.

**man with no head** · 30-10-2006, 10:57 PM

Simple response: I don't believe the attacks were justified.

Does that mean that someone else couldn't justify them? It depends on whether the tube is considered a purely civilian target. After all the justification for Israel's bombing of Lebanon's airport and highway system was on the ground that Hezbollah might use them to receive arms....despite the overwhelming civilian nature of highways and airports.

As I said, if terrorists cannot inflict harm on a nation's soldiers due to strength or fortification then the next logical target is civilian infrastructure and/or civilians in general. Considering the bombings of the subway and the 'attempted bombings' of the airlines a few months ago the question needs to be answered: were large scale civilian casualties likely, or, was it more designed to increase the overall level of fear and paranoia, thus, accomplishing a great deal of success without actually killing anyone?

Hypothetically, if I were a terrorist I would avoid civilian casualties as much as I could.

**RDN** · 30-10-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

I saw it, I don't have a well thought out response yet.

Making it up as you go along?

Originally Posted by surasak

...depends on whether the tube is considered a purely civilian target...

Definitely making it up...

**man with no head** · 30-10-2006, 11:58 PM

By that I meant: a civilian target as being like an high rise apartment building versus public infrastructure like an airport or mass transit system (more as a symbol of government). As a form of mass transit a successful attack would lead to paralysis. I think the intention was to destroy the tube more than have a high casualty rate. In a large U.S. city like NY or Chicago destroying a major portion of the L or the subway would have devestating consequences on transit even if nobody was killed. In the time of war legitimate targets do include transportation networks, do they not?

Perhaps the symbolism is lost on some people since the British used the subways as a major means of shelter during WWII. Maybe this is why it was used as a target: it would appear if one wanted to cause casualties there would be better ways to do it.

**HermantheGerman** · 31-10-2006, 12:20 AM

I think you are forgetting one important thing. These attacks are not primitive acts of revenge. We have some very educated masterminds behind these terrorist attacks. It is not some poor lost soul that is planning these things which cost millions of dollars. Meaning if they realy wanted to spare civilians I'am sure they could have. It is their intention to raise as much publicity as they can.
When a military target gets hit, there is not much talk-in-the-town.
But when a civilian target gets hit CNN and Al-Dschasira will be there. And thats when it becomes TERRORISM.

**man with no head** · 31-10-2006, 12:29 AM

An act doesn't need to involve a civilian target or to result in a single casualty to be called terrorism now under the MCA of 2006.

**HermantheGerman** · 31-10-2006, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

An act doesn't need to involve a civilian target or to result in a single casualty to be called terrorism now under the MCA of 2006.

Not true! Not since 2006 !

I've rode the N.Y. subway for over 8 years. What happened there was terrorism at its best form.
Is that what you meant?

**humphrey** · 31-10-2006, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by surasak

An act doesn't need to involve a civilian target or to result in a single casualty to be called terrorism now under the MCA of 2006.

Not true! Not since 2006 !

I've rode the N.Y. subway for over 8 years. What happened there was terrorism at its best form.
Is that what you meant?

Not then. It was called hooliganism.

**humphrey** · 31-10-2006, 06:57 AM

BTW I thought this thread was about a veil?

**man with no head** · 31-10-2006, 07:46 AM

Is there a historical basis for Muslim women wearing veils, did any other religious group use them, or, was this just an opportunistic woman making something out of nothing (i.e. no Muslim women wear veils except school teachers looking to makea quick pound or two)?

**Whiteshiva** · 31-10-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by RDN

Muslin women: Beneath the veil

Muslim women are some of the most knowledgeable and fashion-forward shoppers in the world. And under that shapeless, monochrome exterior, don't be surprised to find a daring and imaginative sense of style - not to mention a miniskirt or pink hot pants.

Amid all the recent controversy and hand-wringing over what Muslim women should and shouldn't wear in this country, I found myself wondering - perhaps in my capacity as a fashion editor, but mainly just as a woman - if there wasn't a more interesting question worth asking about Muslim women and their clothes. There is a tendency, in the Western world, to assume that if a Muslim woman is observant of her faith - and covering her body, with varying degrees of extremism, is symbolic of that observance - that she is automatically excluded from being fashionable; she is, in some way, "outside" of fashion. There is also is a tendency to lump traditional Muslim dress into one dull generic pile of black cloth and to assume that one size fits all.

But any time I have been in one of London's most immediately identifiable Muslim areas - Edgware Road at night; Brick Lane on Sundays; the Serpentine during the summer months - it starts to become clear that there is a whole other fashion lexicon at play among modern Muslim women. Sometimes it's in the eyes, other times it's in the tie of the robe or the texture of the cloth; and while those subtle nuances might not initially mean much to most Western eyes, it's obvious that something intriguing is definitely going on beneath those veils.

Independent Online Edition > This Britain

What a load of tosh.

I Dunno - I remember discussing clothes with some of the Malay girls from my office in KL over lunch one day (all but two of them wearing the headscarf), and one of them telling me that she picked up some sexy underwear last time she was in Paris, and that her husband loved it (on her, I think I should add!).

She then went on to ask me why western women dressed up when they went out, and then dressed "down" when they got back home to their husbands. She claimed (and I have heard the same from others) that a good Muslim woman dresses her best when she is alone with her husband, or when alone with other women. To dress sexy in front of other men would be unthinkable, and quite frankly pointless.

There is a certain logic to this, I personally do not agree, but I can see where they are coming from.

**Whiteshiva** · 31-10-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

I think the intention was to destroy the tube more than have a high casualty rate.

Surasak, if I remember right, the timing and the construction of the bombs where made as to inflict the maximum number of casualties. If they had only wanted to disrupt a public service, there would have been much easier ways of doing it, without even killing themselves.

**Butterfly** · 31-10-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

There is a certain logic to this, I personally do not agree, but I can see where they are coming from.

Maybe we are the ones who got it all wrong. Western women dressing provocally to get attention and then cry wolf when they get too much attention. Western society is as fucked up as the "Religious" ones in some ways, so at the end it's just a question of choice, not which one is better.

**Butterfly** · 31-10-2006, 10:02 AM

actually we should support the veil in some cases. Have you seen those Arab "whales" walking down on Sukhumvit ? do we really want to see them dressed up in short pink dress ? No way, and those black outfit get my vote. Support the Veil.

Obviously some western women would need to wear them as well.

**Mr Earl** · 31-10-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

I saw it, I don't have a well thought out response yet.

Are you paraphrasing the nitwit David Letterman?

How can the question of whether the London suicide bombings were justified or not require more than a nanosecond of consideration?

**man with no head** · 31-10-2006, 12:09 PM

I might ask the same thing about the war in Iraq.

If you can support that then why should it surprise you people support the tube or WTC attacks?

Thread: The 'Veil'

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions