UKIP to call for a ban on wearing a burka.

[Bun]

The UK Independence Party is considering a call to ban the wearing of burkas, it has been reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/ukip/7004127/UKIP-to-call-for-ban-on-wearing-burka.html

Wow... what are your thoughts on this? Even the far-right BNP only wish for them to be banned from schools. Personally I disagree with it, I don't believe anyone has the power to dictate who wears what, especially to do with their belief. However, I do believe that in certain circumstances, it is unpractical for certain religios garments to be worn, but in general I do not believe they should be banned.

[hah]

they should be allowed wear them in public but not in school because i dont think it even says in there religious book (dunno name i forgot lol) that they are suppose to wear it...

[Tash.]

Having read what the UKIP leader had to say, I get the point behind it about not wearing them in airports, as they're right they could danger security. It really depends how far they intend to go with this, if they intend for them to be banned everywhere, being in the streets/shops and things, well thats just dictatorial and wrong. It's a persons choice what they wear, and if you are going to ban burkas then you need to ban hoodies too because they're even worse as they serve no religious purpose whatsoever.

[Bun]

Having read what the UKIP leader had to say, I get the point behind it about not wearing them in airports, as they're right they could danger security. It really depends how far they intend to go with this, if they intend for them to be banned everywhere, being in the streets/shops and things, well thats just dictatorial and wrong. It's a persons choice what they wear, and if you are going to ban burkas then you need to ban hoodies too because they're even worse as they serve no religious purpose whatsoever.
yeah i agree with that. it's about getting the balance right between respecting their beliefs and keeping our country a british country, with british beliefs running the country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm split on it, I agree fully with the airport security factor that Lord Pearson mentioned and thats totally right but at the same time I think banning them everywhere could be possibly too far. That said, most of the women who wear these things don't wear them by choice and apparently the Koran also doesn't say women have to wear them.

I'd say put it to a referendum like Switzerland did on mosques.

[jackass]

I have always thought that they should be banned. I have my reasons. :)

[Tash.]

I'm split on it, I agree fully with the airport security factor that Lord Pearson mentioned and thats totally right but at the same time I think banning them everywhere could be possibly too far. That said, most of the women who wear these things don't wear them by choice and apparently the Koran also doesn't say women have to wear them.

I'd say put it to a referendum like Switzerland did on mosques.

Referendum again huh? Not everything should be put down to a referendum you know. Alot of people are going to vote to ban them purely because they are racist and misunderstand why muslims wear them. It's not exactly the right thing to do.


I have always thought that they should be banned. I have my reasons. :)

Care to share them? Just for the purpose of the thread.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Referendum again huh? Not everything should be put down to a referendum you know. Alot of people are going to vote to ban them purely because they are racist and misunderstand why muslims wear them. It's not exactly the right thing to do.

Care to share them? Just for the purpose of the thread.

Yes a referendum and why? - because it is this country, not the politicians who should have the right to govern. On banning the burka, i'm afraid the majority of people are not racist Tash so do not make out that they are. The majority of people in this country, like myself, want equality for everyone but not over-equality as we have seen. There is nothing to mis-understand on why muslims wear these, they are a sign of the oppression of women/radical islam which is not welcome in Britain so again, do not claim the British public are too stupid to work these things out.

"I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can't wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line." - Nigel Farage

This is exactly what it is all about, its one rule for us and one rule for them. It should be one rule for everybody when it comes to an issue such as this. As shown above, this issue can never be debated properly because as soon as it is the words racist are brought into the subject it paints ordinary, none racists such as myself, UKIP and the majority of the public as racist when we are just not.

[Technologic]

Would you ban a sikh from wearing a turban?

[jackass]

Would you ban a sikh from wearing a turban?

Bit of a difference. :rolleyes:

[Tash.]

Yes a referendum and why? - because it is this country, not the politicians who should have the right to govern. On banning the burka, i'm afraid the majority of people are not racist Tash so do not make out that they are. The majority of people in this country, like myself, want equality for everyone but not over-equality as we have seen. There is nothing to mis-understand on why muslims wear these, they are a sign of the oppression of women/radical islam which is not welcome in Britain so again, do not claim the British public are too stupid to work these things out.

"I can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can't wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line." - Nigel Farage

This is exactly what it is all about, its one rule for us and one rule for them. It should be one rule for everybody when it comes to an issue such as this. As shown above, this issue can never be debated properly because as soon as it is the words racist are brought into the subject it paints ordinary, none racists such as myself, UKIP and the majority of the public as racist when we are just not.


Look, you haven't read the Qu'ran and neither have I, so you cannot conclusively say that they do not wear it for relgious purposes. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they want to wear it in the streets. I can understand airports, banks not allowing them because they can be a security risk, but they are no harm in the street walking past you. You wouldn't mind a lad with a hoodie walking past you and they're more likely to do you harm than a woman in a burka. If you ban only burkas you aren't being fair at all, if you ban burkas you must ban the wearing of hoodies by younger people and you aren't likely to do that are you?

[Technologic]

Bit of a difference. :rolleyes:

How so? They're both worn as a religious rite. Burqas and Hjiabs are worn as it states a woman's sanctity must be protected

[-:Undertaker:-]

Would you ban a sikh from wearing a turban?

That does not obsure the face.


Look, you haven't read the Qu'ran and neither have I, so you cannot conclusively say that they do not wear it for relgious purposes. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they want to wear it in the streets. I can understand airports, banks not allowing them because they can be a security risk, but they are no harm in the street walking past you. You wouldn't mind a lad with a hoodie walking past you and they're more likely to do you harm than a woman in a burka. If you ban only burkas you aren't being fair at all, if you ban burkas you must ban the wearing of hoodies by younger people and you aren't likely to do that are you?

Nigel Farage was just sat in a room with a muslim women, who (after he pressed and pressed her) admitted that burkas are not a mandatory part of the religion of Islam for women. Therefore I can clearly state that burkas are not compulsory for muslim women. On the second point, I agree to an extent we would have to see what policy they come up with at the end of the day when the French have completed their inquiry into the issue. If it bans them on the street, I would disagree however I believe this issue should be put to a referendum that would be worded something like;

Should burkas that hide the face be banned in public buildings?

As Farage said, he cannot wear a helmet in a bank and neither should a burka be allowed either.

[Tash.]

Nigel Farage was just sat in a room with a muslim women, who (after he pressed and pressed her) admitted that burkas are not a mandatory part of the religion of Islam for women. Therefore I can clearly state that burkas are not compulsory for muslim women. On the second point, I agree to an extent we would have to see what policy they come up with at the end of the day when the French have completed their inquiry into the issue. If it bans them on the street, I would disagree however I believe this issue should be put to a referendum that would be worded something like;

Should burkas that hide the face be banned in public buildings?

As Farage said, he cannot wear a helmet in a bank and neither should a burka be allowed either.

As someone earlier said, they are there to protect the modesty of the women. That may not be a value that we have here, but I don't see how it does any harm when warn in day to day life. As i've said previously, yes they should be banned in banks and airports, just the same as a helmet would be. But you wouldn't ban those or hoodies in the street so to me you are taking away a civil liberty if you ban burkas in the streets.

[AlexOC]

Should be banned in public places. But there should be areas you can wear them.

Like smoking really.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As someone earlier said, they are there to protect the modesty of the women. That may not be a value that we have here, but I don't see how it does any harm when warn in day to day life. As i've said previously, yes they should be banned in banks and airports, just the same as a helmet would be. But you wouldn't ban those or hoodies in the street so to me you are taking away a civil liberty if you ban burkas in the streets.

That is an opinion, we are in Britain and not Saudi Arabia and therefore our values must come first and be respected before others. If a man wanted to walk around naked, would that be allowed? - but he could say he wants to because he believes it shows his freedom - but it isn't allowed.

On the second issue, are UKIP proposing a total ban or just a partial ban in public buildings. I support the ban in public buildings fully however as I stated before, I am not fully supportive if a ban everywhere.


Should be banned in public places. But there should be areas you can wear them.

Like smoking really.

Totally agree.

[Technologic]

Totally agree.

What? You expect Muslim women to just nip outside for five minutes to wear a Burqa?

[AlexOC]

What? You expect Muslim women to just nip outside for five minutes to wear a Burqa?

LMAO.

Thats exactly the image i realised people would think when i re-read my post.

No, likes obviously their places of worship, homes, etc.

[jackass]

What? You expect Muslim women to just nip outside for five minutes to wear a Burqa?

Good point - they should be banned completely.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What? You expect Muslim women to just nip outside for five minutes to wear a Burqa?

What has that got to do with a burka?

I have just said, I would agree with a ban as AlexOC proposed that is similar to the one they have used on smoking, where smoking is banned in public places. Its very clear-cut.

[AlexOC]

But come to think of it, shouldnt the people who wear scarves around there faces and caps be forced to take them off aswell.

[Technologic]

What has that got to do with a burka?

I have just said, I would agree with a ban as AlexOC proposed that is similar to the one they have used on smoking, where smoking is banned in public places. Its very clear-cut.

Sunglasses obscure the face, so do hoods. Should those be banned too?

[AlexOC]

But come to think of it, shouldnt the people who wear scarves around there faces and caps be forced to take them off aswell.


Sunglasses obscure the face, so do hoods. Should those be banned too?

As i was thinking.

[Tash.]

That is an opinion, we are in Britain and not Saudi Arabia and therefore our values must come first and be respected before others. If a man wanted to walk around naked, would that be allowed? - but he could say he wants to because he believes it shows his freedom - but it isn't allowed.

On the second issue, are UKIP proposing a total ban or just a partial ban in public buildings. I support the ban in public buildings fully however as I stated before, I am not fully supportive if a ban everywhere.


I realise that you don't exactly welcome multiculturism as much as some others, myself I guess, but it doesn't really matter where we are. When you are in Saudi Arabia I doubt you'd be pleased if they forced you to wear something you did not want to, or if they forced you to remove a piece of clothing you considered to be fine. The same applies here. Yes this is the UK, I think we all know this, but why can't we just accept that some people wish to wear a burka? As long as they do nobody any harm I am happy to just leave them alone. The naked comparsion is weak, you wouldn't allow nudity in the streets because that is outraging public decency and is an offence. Wearing a burka does not cause the same kind of offence, and frankly anyone who it does cause offence to needs to re-evaluate their lives because they are being petty. If a referendum was to be allowed on this I can firmly say I would vote to allow them to keep them, I aren't in the business of taking away a persons right to wear something that they feel they need to wear.


Edit; thank you Alex and Technologic, exactly my point.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But come to think of it, shouldnt the people who wear scarves around there faces and caps be forced to take them off aswell.


Sunglasses obscure the face, so do hoods. Should those be banned too?

Yeah they should, Sunglasses can be debatable as they only cover the eyes but yeah with the caps, if the cap is facing downwards and it is hard to see that persons facial features then yes they should also be banned in public places such as banks.

Let us be a bit sensible here though, burkas are far larger and more-covering than sunglasses, scarves and caps.


I realise that you don't exactly welcome multiculturism as much as some others, myself I guess, but it doesn't really matter where we are. When you are in Saudi Arabia I doubt you'd be pleased if they forced you to wear something you did not want to, or if they forced you to remove a piece of clothing you considered to be fine. The same applies here. Yes this is the UK, I think we all know this, but why can't we just accept that some people wish to wear a burka? As long as they do nobody any harm I am happy to just leave them alone. The naked comparsion is weak, you wouldn't allow nudity in the streets because that is outraging public decency and is an offence. Wearing a burka does not cause the same kind of offence, and frankly anyone who it does cause offence to needs to re-evaluate their lives because they are being petty. If a referendum was to be allowed on this I can firmly say I would vote to allow them to keep them, I aren't in the business of taking away a persons right to wear something that they feel they need to wear.

Oh I am welcoming of multi-culturalism, as long as it does not destroy British values and aslong as the are treated the same as we are, and not higher than us. I do accept it, but when we are not allowed to wear a helmet in a bank then neither should a burka be allowed for security reasons.

On the referendum, then you are being unfairly fair to them. Do you think helmets should also be allowed in banks and public buildings then? - but as it is, thats your opinion and you very well may think that and thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, however a referendum should be held because it is fair and just, from whatever side you are for/against.

[AlexOC]

Yeah they should, Sunglasses can be debatable as they only cover the eyes but yeah with the caps, if the cap is facing downwards and it is hard to see that persons facial features then yes they should also be banned in public places such as banks.

Let us be a bit sensible here though, burkas are far larger and more-covering than sunglasses, scarves and caps.

I don't agree with sunglasses, but if someone is wearing a cap and a scarf around there face, its covering the same amount of face as a burka.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't agree with sunglasses, but if someone is wearing a cap and a scarve around there face, its covering the same amount of face as a burka.

I agree, and that should not be allowed either.

[Tash.]

Let us be a bit sensible here though, burkas are far larger and more-covering than sunglasses, scarves and caps.



Oh I am welcoming of multi-culturalism, as long as it does not destroy British values and aslong as the are treated the same as we are, and not higher than us. I do accept it, but when we are not allowed to wear a helmet in a bank then neither should a burka be allowed for security reasons.

On the referendum, then you are being unfairly fair to them. Do you think helmets should also be allowed in banks and public buildings then? - but as it is, thats your opinion and you very well may think that and thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, however a referendum should be held because it is fair and just, from whatever side you are for/against.

I don't understand this whole "as long as they don't destroy British values".. values constantly change and as far as I can see right now the only values we have is allowing children and youths to dress up with scarves and hoodies, ride around on their bikes/mopeds and generally raise hell. Not to mention men and women going out and getting blitzed every weekend and embarassing themselves in public. I'm not sure that's something you want to preserve.

No I do not think you should be allowed to wear a helmet in a bank, nor an airport and the same goes with a burka. What I am arguing is that if they want to wear it in a shop or in the street then they may. And no it isn't, like I said earlier it is far from just. Alot of people, and you can say I am underestimating the majority of the british public if you like, will vote against it because they do not understand why women wear them. That is voting based on ignorance and I aren't in favour of something being banned purely on a group of people's prejudices.

And finally, at the bit at the top. Yes Burkas cover more than a scarf and glasses but who cares what they cover? Are you now saying you need to see a persons torso to be sure that they aren't doing something underhand?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't understand this whole "as long as they don't destroy British values".. values constantly change and as far as I can see right now the only values we have is allowing children and youths to dress up with scarves and hoodies, ride around on their bikes/mopeds and generally raise hell. Not to mention men and women going out and getting blitzed every weekend and embarassing themselves in public. I'm not sure that's something you want to preserve. No I don't want to preserve that, but I also don't want to replace it with fundemental islamic values and laws and nor do the British people.


No I do not think you should be allowed to wear a helmet in a bank, nor an airport and the same goes with a burka. What I am arguing is that if they want to wear it in a shop or in the street then they may. And no it isn't, like I said earlier it is far from just. Alot of people, and you can say I am underestimating the majority of the british public if you like, will vote against it because they do not understand why women wear them. That is voting based on ignorance and I aren't in favour of something being banned purely on a group of people's prejudices.I agree with you then.

No sorry, again you are denying the people a say because you are basically calling them too stupid to decide what they want. Most people do not read political party manifestos, does that mean elections should also be cancelled? - no it doesn't.

We did not throw down the divine right of kings to be ruled by experts.


And finally, at the bit at the top. Yes Burkas cover more than a scarf and glasses but who cares what they cover? Are you now saying you need to see a persons torso to be sure that they aren't doing something underhand?I thought you agree that they should be banned in banks and so on? - what exactly are you arguing for, I agree with you.

[TaffTalk]

At the end of the day, this is a Protestant/Anglican country, so if Burkhas are upsetting ordinary people then they should be banned in Public, if 'hoodies' are deemed intimidating, so should Burkhas. Beggers belief why they are aloud to be worn in Airports aswell.

[Geraint]

If I walked down the street wearing a balaclava, I'd be arrested.

[AlexOC]

If I walked down the street wearing a balaclava, I'd be arrested.


True, but that shows you intend to commit armed robbery :P

[Geraint]

next time i rob the offie i'll wear a burka.

[GommeInc]

Referendum again huh? Not everything should be put down to a referendum you know. Alot of people are going to vote to ban them purely because they are racist and misunderstand why muslims wear them. It's not exactly the right thing to do.
It's not fully understood why Muslim women have to wear them, it seems to be a cultural backdrop which came from nowhere. You have little faith in the British people if you consider them all racist blighters :P

Banning them in airports is fine, it's a perfectly good reason. Totally banning them is a step too far. Perhaps banning their use, but allowing them to be worn in places of worship is a better option? They tend to be hazards and problematic in the public, with store managers wondering what to do. They're effectively like hoodies, they're not meant to be worn religiously and hide identity, which is pretty belittling to women, though saying they have rights not to wear them contradicts the rights in so many ways (you have the right to be free, NOW REMOVE THEM). It's a difficult discussion really, seeing as some may wear them simply because they feel they should.

[Jordy]

Didn't France successfully ban them in public a few years back? People don't go around calling Sarkozy racist because of it.

I would personally back a ban on them, whether it's important to Muslims or not, there is an evident security risk.

As for the comment about Saudi Arabia, in certain parts of Iraq, and in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, women are forced to wear burkas whether they're Muslim or not, this also applies to foreigners.

[GommeInc]

Didn't France successfully ban them in public a few years back? People don't go around calling Sarkozy racist because of it.

I would personally back a ban on them, whether it's important to Muslims or not, there is an evident security risk.

As for the comment about Saudi Arabia, in certain parts of Iraq, and in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, women are forced to wear burkas whether they're Muslim or not, this also applies to foreigners.
I have a feeling it was in 2009, in autumn :) Also, burkhas cannot be removed as easily as scalves or sunglasses (accessories) - major flaw in saying that sunglasses, hoodies (the hood just comes down), ear rings, scalves etc should be banned if the burka is banned too. Hijabs are acceptable, as they do not cover the face in most cases.

[Ardemax]

next time i rob the offie i'll wear a burka.

That's just stupid... bring a mate.

Well UKIP won't win the next general election (imo) so we won't be faced with this problem immediately. However if nobody has a problem with them, then there's no reason for the ban. But yeah, some people do have a problem and if we put it to a vote, I'm sure it would settle the arguement.

[Alkaz]

I think its good, what about all that fuss about that woman who wore a cross, the muslim or w.e did her absolute nut and didnt the christian woman get suspended for refusing to take it off.. in a catholic country?

A while ago in my local paper, someone in a super market was of a different religion dont know what one but because a woman had a cross on he refused to serve her and the woman was escorted off the premisis. Its just a joke, its our country if they dont like it they know where to go :) If you turned the tables and it was their country, there would be no namby pamby discussions like this, you'd be forced to take it off or *bang* *bang*.

[Grippz]

If they want to live here then they should have to remove them. I am all for it!

[Hitman]

I would personally agree with a ban on them - I dislike them and think they are degrading for women. I know it's their religion, but this country is Christian not Muslim. I can see security issues with them and problems with passports, etc.

I'm not racist btw, just my personal views.

[Swearwolf]

i agree with it.

[Black_Apalachi]

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who says they should be allowed, has no right to then complain about motorcycle helmets (as has been mentioned) but also hoodies. When I hear people complain about hoodies, a Facebook group springs to mind; 'I wear a hoodie to keep warm, not because I want to stab you'. Basically, all forms of garments which help to conceal one's identity, should be treated with the same rules - whether they are allowed or not is a different story.

[Soy]

i see letterbox faces everywhere

sounds like a good idea

[Caution]

Good idea. If someone was wearing one and walked into a bank I was in I'd be worried. Common sense really..

[ifuseekamy]

I'm not for banning clothing but I don't see why they wear the full get up, surely the scarf will suffice?

[RedStratocas]

i dont think burkas should be banned, however i also dont think that means we shouldnt look down upon the idea of burkas. i dont think theres any legal standing to ban them, since i see it as a violation of rights. but really, as racist as it may seem, i dont have to respect their culture. the rest of the world has been able to gracefully apply the rights of women in progress, there's no reason they should be so far behind in terms of social rights. all other religions have been able to overcome their blatantly sexist origins, islam should too. but, again, my stance is that they should not be banned, we cant force anything.

[Black_Apalachi]

i dont think burkas should be banned, however i also dont think that means we shouldnt look down upon the idea of burkas. i dont think theres any legal standing to ban them, since i see it as a violation of rights. but really, as racist as it may seem, i dont have to respect their culture. the rest of the world has been able to gracefully apply the rights of women in progress, there's no reason they should be so far behind in terms of social rights. all other religions have been able to overcome their blatantly sexist origins, islam should too. but, again, my stance is that they should not be banned, we cant force anything.

Yeah but if we go to their country, our women HAVE to wear them.

Just a general question, do you see many people wearing them in NY?

[RedStratocas]

Yeah but if we go to their country, our women HAVE to wear them.

Just a general question, do you see many people wearing them in NY?

yeah exactly my point lol, its pretty ridic tbh. but honestly i just see banning them causing unnecessary controversy and could possibly backfire, seeing how many middle eastern muslims take absolutely any offense of their religion (say, a cartoon depiction of muhammad) far too seriously. i think theyve gotta take the progress on their own.

to be honest with you i cant recall having ever seen a woman in a burka in the united states. there's plenty of religious getups in nyc, especially near penn station and grand central, but the only time ive ever seen a woman wearing one was when i was outside the airport in london back in august.

[Oleh]

Im gonna go for a .. I agree with UKIP, they should ban them altogether - i also agree with what my local BNP MP says "If you abide by our rules we accept you - if you live on benefits and make no attempt at following our culture - Piss off

[Black_Apalachi]

yeah exactly my point lol, its pretty ridic tbh. but honestly i just see banning them causing unnecessary controversy and could possibly backfire, seeing how many middle eastern muslims take absolutely any offense of their religion (say, a cartoon depiction of muhammad) far too seriously. i think theyve gotta take the progress on their own.

to be honest with you i cant recall having ever seen a woman in a burka in the united states. there's plenty of religious getups in nyc, especially near penn station and grand central, but the only time ive ever seen a woman wearing one was when i was outside the airport in london back in august.

I guess the Jews probably went to you the most out of all the religions. That's the one cool religion tbh :-)

[AgnesIO]

Sudenly I vote UKIP.

If a female from the 'west' went to Iran or a Muslim countr they would be EXPECTED towhere a Burka.

If you come to a countr in the west, you sould be forced to live by our rules or **** off :)

[Seatherny]

Can anyone prove that when a woman goes to Dubai, Pakistan etc, they have to wear a burka?

[Sly]

Good they're mingin

[RedStratocas]

Sudenly I vote UKIP.

If a female from the 'west' went to Iran or a Muslim countr they would be EXPECTED towhere a Burka.

If you come to a countr in the west, you sould be forced to live by our rules or **** off :)

the whole point of our western ideals, however, is that we are open-minded and let people have freedom of religion and culture. we dont have "rules" governing peoples' ideals at all. so the argument could be made that by banning it we're just stooping to their level and are no better than an oppressive nation. btw they dont force women to wear burkas in iran, theyre a relatively progressive muslim nation.


Can anyone prove that when a woman goes to Dubai, Pakistan etc, they have to wear a burka?

i dont think its a law anywhere but it is culturally looked down upon if you don't wear a burka. if you went to baghdad without one, the police wouldnt get you, but i would sure as hell watch out for their citizens.

[alexxxxx]

Can anyone prove that when a woman goes to Dubai, Pakistan etc, they have to wear a burka?

my cousins live in jordan (muslim country) and they don't wear a burkha. and they are muslims.

[Black_Apalachi]

Can anyone prove that when a woman goes to Dubai, Pakistan etc, they have to wear a burka?

Well do you know if it is or not?

[Japan]

It's scary how many people have started supporting the UKIP after this discussion.
Have you even had a look/understand their policies and what they stand for?

[Hecktix]

And this is why you shouldn't vote UKIP.

Multiculturalism ftw!

Everybody should have their rights.

[Seatherny]

Well do you know if it is or not?

Hence I was asking ...

People say you must wear burka's in Muslim countries. I am sure when most western people go to Dubai, they don't start wearing burka's. Same applies for Pakistan.

[Wig44.]

Well it's not a threat really, 'terrorists' are simply a false image conjured by the government to give society an enemy. Al Qaeda aren't responsible for terorrist attacks - though that doesn't excuse people who believe they are and decide martyrdom is their path. Terrorism is a fallacy used for social cohesion. I am not one to believe in conspiracies, but the major 'attack' blamed on Osama bin Laden - 9/11 - was a false flag attack and this has been proven over and over, the thermate (thermite) found in the rubble, the way the girders in the middle of the WTCs have obvious signs of cutting, the fact that it would take several planes (made from aluminium) to take down a steel building.

Sorry to have derailed the topic but there has been enough of this now.

[Seatherny]

Who created the Taliban. People should go find out.

[AgnesIO]

Well it's not a threat really, 'terrorists' are simply a false image conjured by the government to give society an enemy. Al Qaeda aren't responsible for terorrist attacks - though that doesn't excuse people who believe they are and decide martyrdom is their path. Terrorism is a fallacy used for social cohesion. I am not one to believe in conspiracies, but the major 'attack' blamed on Osama bin Laden - 9/11 - was a false flag attack and this has been proven over and over, the thermate (thermite) found in the rubble, the way the girders in the middle of the WTCs have obvious signs of cutting, the fact that it would take several planes (made from aluminium) to take down a steel building.

Sorry to have derailed the topic but there has been enough of this now.


Are you claiming that there are no such people as terrorists and they are simply figments of the goverments imagination? :S

[Barmi]

This is why we shouldn't give UKIP power.

That is all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As we can clearly see from posts like above, and throughout this thread - the people incharge with views such as these are the ones who treat us like second class citzens of our own country because they are too afraid of upsetting the extremist parts of a minority. And they wonder why the BNP keep gaining support?

[Neversoft]

The UK Independence Party is considering a call to ban the wearing of burkas, it has been reported.

Good call.

[Wig44.]

Are you claiming that there are no such people as terrorists and they are simply figments of the goverments imagination? :S

A simple way of putting it. There is no Al Qaida. There is no islamic army.

[AgnesIO]

A simple way of putting it. There is no Al Qaida. There is no islamic army.

Of course there is a bloody Al Qaida - what planet are you on?

Are you now saynig there is no ETA?

[Wig44.]

Of course there is a bloody Al Qaida - what planet are you on?

Are you now saynig there is no ETA?

Earth. You can't respect people's opinions at all, simply because you don't understand them. Terrorism is a myth, some people may imitate them but the so called war on terorrism is just another way to bring profits in to the pocket of the rich elite.

For instance, pre US controlled-Afghanistan produced almost no opium, with US control it supplied 80% of the worlds supply around 1999-2000. Then the taliban burned all the opium fields in 2000. How did the USA respond? They (the US government) carried out 9/11 on their own people, and used that as an excuse to invade. Through US control they have managed to push production back up to 80%.

You know that for a society to exist it needs an enemy, right? Cohesion through conflict. At least, having an enemy draws attention away from the government. The UK and the USA have conjured this myth of Al Qaeda so they can justify their wars to the people.

Now, pockets of individuals who believed there was a terrorist movement actually idiolize these people, therefore there are pockets of 'terrorists'.

The motive behind this myth? Preserving the establishment. The anti terorrism measures and the huge power the establishment has due to these measures is simply for self-preservation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While I don't agree with the extent of what Wig is saying, its true that the terrorist threat has been over-done to justify taking away civil liberties and to justify unjust wars such as the invasion of Iraq, Michael Moores Farenheit 9/11 provides excellent examples of how the Bush Administration took the terrorist threat and turned it into something far bigger than it actually was to justify toppling Saddam Hussein and introducing laws which in a pre-terror world would never of seen the light of day because they are simply wrong and do not have a place in a free and democratic nation.

The same equally applies to our own government and councils and how they have used and still use terrorist laws for a number of trivial things.

[AgnesIO]

Earth. You can't respect people's opinions at all, simply because you don't understand them. Terrorism is a myth, some people may imitate them but the so called war on terorrism is just another way to bring profits in to the pocket of the rich elite.

For instance, pre US controlled-Afghanistan produced almost no opium, with US control it supplied 80% of the worlds supply around 1999-2000. Then the taliban burned all the opium fields in 2000. How did the USA respond? They (the US government) carried out 9/11 on their own people, and used that as an excuse to invade. Through US control they have managed to push production back up to 80%.

You know that for a society to exist it needs an enemy, right? Cohesion through conflict. At least, having an enemy draws attention away from the government. The UK and the USA have conjured this myth of Al Qaeda so they can justify their wars to the people.

Now, pockets of individuals who believed there was a terrorist movement actually idiolize these people, therefore there are pockets of 'terrorists'.

The motive behind this myth? Preserving the establishment. The anti terorrism measures and the huge power the establishment has due to these measures is simply for self-preservation.

So ETA, Al Qaeda etc are all myths. Yes?

[Wig44.]

So ETA, Al Qaeda etc are all myths. Yes?

Al Qaeda is a myth. Terorrism exists but is far, far rarer than prescribed by the media. It's just a way of smearing opposition to the machine that has an economic empire around the world, controlled by debt.

Please, instead of bashing me actually read between the lines.

[Black_Apalachi]

Earth. You can't respect people's opinions at all, simply because you don't understand them. Terrorism is a myth, some people may imitate them but the so called war on terorrism is just another way to bring profits in to the pocket of the rich elite.

For instance, pre US controlled-Afghanistan produced almost no opium, with US control it supplied 80% of the worlds supply around 1999-2000. Then the taliban burned all the opium fields in 2000. How did the USA respond? They (the US government) carried out 9/11 on their own people, and used that as an excuse to invade. Through US control they have managed to push production back up to 80%.

You know that for a society to exist it needs an enemy, right? Cohesion through conflict. At least, having an enemy draws attention away from the government. The UK and the USA have conjured this myth of Al Qaeda so they can justify their wars to the people.

Now, pockets of individuals who believed there was a terrorist movement actually idiolize these people, therefore there are pockets of 'terrorists'.

The motive behind this myth? Preserving the establishment. The anti terorrism measures and the huge power the establishment has due to these measures is simply for self-preservation.

So.... Tony Blair blew up the buses in London?

[Wig44.]

So.... Tony Blair blew up the buses in London?

On the day of the 7/7 bombings, there was a training exercise of the 'exact same scenario' as the real attack, just like what happened with NORAD on the day of 9/11. Draw up your own conclusions.

[Black_Apalachi]

That doesn't make sense though... if that were the case wouldn't the London bombings BECOME the training exercise? :S

[Wig44.]

That doesn't make sense though... if that were the case wouldn't the London bombings BECOME the training exercise? :S

The training exercise was to throw off defenses in place, just like NORAD had no chance of taking down over 40 possible targets because they had several training exercises on the day of the 9/11 bombings, one of which was the WTCs being bombed. There are recorded transcripts of the pilots asking 'is this real-world of exercise?'. It was to deter suspicion within the lower ranks, the grunts who aren't entitled to the knowledge held by the elite few.

[Black_Apalachi]

OH OK, I get it now :P. But still, it's not like there are any immediate defences for a guy blowing up a bus so I don't see the point of trying to prevent the defences, if you get me..

[ifuseekamy]

Im gonna go for a .. I agree with UKIP, they should ban them altogether - i also agree with what my local BNP MP says "If you abide by our rules we accept you - if you live on benefits and make no attempt at following our culture - Piss off
What is our culture?

[Seatherny]

What is our culture?

Drink as much as you can.