'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is threatening women and trying

With the "My Brother - The Islamist" footage: although they all seem quite likable as people (we only meet the men), they have one terrible flaw.
As one guy screams at them in a later part of the footage: "Sod off; bloody terrorists"!
And, unfortunately, this man is totally correct.

Now Americans want to be politically correct, and these "converts" quite openly proclaim they are waging war on the society that tolerates them.
Let me say this - these Islamists must be identified and put away forever.
Even democratic countries clamp down hard on cults sometimes.
They may think they are nice people, but they are rubbish, and they endanger us all.

reply to post by Unity_99


I agree and disagree, in roughly equal measure, with many of the points you made in your post. In fact, I starred your post because I found it an interesting read.

However, you still haven't answered my question, which is: why is it child abuse for your five sons to see a woman covering her face ( from a culture where this is expected ), yet it's not child abuse for your five sons to see a woman being legally forced to cover her breasts in the West ?

Your view is inconsistent and culturally biased.

My brother - The Islamist (part 4)


This whole cult seems to be about outer form.
The clothes and costumes are very important - for the white converts, almost like a racial drag act.
It's like another form of rebellious youth movement to get attention, or that's how it comes across.
The only thing is this is one form of rebellion that not only causes parents untold anxiety, but it can get people into trouble for life if they act on the violent teachings.
That one kid is just 17.
He's dressed like a Bosnian Mujahadeen, because he's white (see clip).
It seems they all get different costumes. Well, so much for non-racism.

Pity that the violent beliefs totally ruin the positive aspects of clean living.
Goes to show - some people don't have to get drunk to make complete fools of themselves.
Their ridiculous ideology of global conquest overshadows the sympathy they want to spread for oppressed Muslim peoples in occupied countries,
These clowns accomplish the exact opposite, and they use the victimization of normal Muslims not for humanitarian concerns, but with a sense of gleeful retribution. (One can just as well show footage of Islamists murdering and torturing people - especially in parts of Africa.)

None of them seem to work (the one guy in the Ninja outfit sells perfume at the mosque).
They get to sleep away the daylight hours during the fast (so much for commitment).

I'd like to see a protest where the Islamists face off against the Westboro cult - a battle of the bigots.
Viewers can then vote who was the most hateful and obnoxious, and who had the scariest version of hell.
Realty TV take note!

In South Africa we couldn't really care if they were the veil or not, and most Muslim women do not have face coverings (although the Somalians are otherwise covered from head to toe, and the men wear several layers of clothing, which means they have a distinct smell about them). But, unlike Europe we don't feel we're overrun by a foreign group of ingrates.

I actually feel sorry for this woman, trying to eat spaghetti while wearing her veil.
Even the face covering cannot hide her look of embarrassment.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Um.....nudist camps are more natural than veils. But most women have a sense of modesty and Canada is cold much of the year. But to have a culture that hides a woman behind a lack shroud is horrifying and demeaning and my sons won't see that. At least while women usually agree to wear their tops here, they are still often pretty natural, in full view, and benefitting from the sun and vit D, and equal. By the way, it wouldn't be naked women that nearly cause me to faint and have a car crash while driving, its those bare chested men in the summer. But most of us don't feel like walking around naked.

How to "gently" beat your wife - Islamic rules:

Originally posted by Unity_99
Um.....nudist camps are more natural than veils.

A public show of nudity is not permitted, culturally or legally, in Canada, Britain, the USA, and many other Western countries.

By definition, a ''nudist camp'' implies that a public state of nudity is not accepted outside the private confines of the camp.

Of course nudity is more natural than a veil, but nudity is also more natural than a bra.

When are you going to decry - in the same fervent manner as you have criticised the burqa - the way that Western women are culturally obliged and, in some cases, legally forced to cover their breasts ?

Originally posted by Unity_99
But most women have a sense of modesty and Canada is cold much of the year.

You are just reinforcing my point regarding cultural relativity and your ingrained cultural bias.

Firstly, you say that ''most women have a sense of modesty''. So, are you saying that the numerous women around the world who, transculturally, walk around bare-breasted, lack a sense of modesty ?

Secondly, isn't the concept of modesty the main reason for the wearing of the burqa and niqab ?


LOL. Canada may be cold, but your laws are based on British laws, and we have had a bit of an unusually hot April. I stripped off my top on a couple of occasions, yet women aren't allowed to be equally bare-torsoed in public ?

Why the double standard ? More importantly, why do you claim that it's child abuse for your boys to see a woman in a burqa or niqab, yet it's not child abuse for them to see women with their breasts covered up ?

You continually fail to answer this question.

Originally posted by Unity_99
But to have a culture that hides a woman behind a lack shroud is horrifying and demeaning and my sons won't see that.

I'm pretty sure your sons do see that. You said that you live in Canada, so, if you live in a reasonably sized city, they will see women and burqas and niqabs quite frequently.

How can any attire be ''horrifying'' or ''demeaning'' if someone chooses to wear it ?

Have a word with yourself.

Originally posted by Unity_99
At least while women usually agree to wear their tops here, they are still often pretty natural, in full view, and benefitting from the sun and vit D, and equal.

Women agree to cover up their breasts because it's culturally expected in Western society.

Women agree to cover up their face because it's culturally expected in some Middle Eastern/Central Asian societies.

What's the difference ?

Originally posted by Unity_99
By the way, it wouldn't be naked women that nearly cause me to faint and have a car crash while driving, its those bare chested men in the summer. But most of us don't feel like walking around naked.

Well it's a good job that you weren't driving through my city the other week, as the site of me strutting, nay, casually prancing around bare-chested was enough to send any woman wild.

Seriously though, most women in the West don't feel like walking around naked due to social and cultural norms that they were brought up with.

Some women from other cultures feel uncomfortable having to show their face, due to similar cultural norms in their own cultures, regions or countries.


How come you want to limit what a woman can choose to wear, and also limit how a woman should be able to conduct and express herself in a free country ?

Poor show.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Women agree to cover up their breasts because it's culturally expected in Western society.

Women agree to cover up their face because it's culturally expected in some Middle Eastern/Central Asian societies.

What's the difference ?

You make some relevant and well constructed points.

But the answer to your question is simply this; we aren't in 'some Middle Eastern/Central Asian society' we are in a Western European society.
If their traditions and customs contradict our own then they should respect that just as we respect their traditions and customs when visiting their countries.

Respect should be mutual and cut both ways.
Seems to me it's mainly just one way at present.

Originally posted by Team Locke
Yep, saw this coming years ago. It will only get worse. UK is over. The US is going to be next unless the idiots realize what's going on before it's to late.

Na, Hispanic Americans would make the KKK seem gentile if muslims in America tried that.

Its abnormal and abusive to have a culture do this to women, and we won't tolerate this in the west. I don't envision it anymore anywhere on this planet. Breasts, genitals, and faces are completely different body parts! Can we all agree on this?

This has gone way too far, and their endgame depopulation is playing out now in earnest.

Its time to move beyond these kiddy issues, these anthill concerns of control. This thread was written to draw attention to a group that was trying to create control in our free countries, but you know, its moved far beyond this with BP, Fukushima, the polluting of the Great Lakes in Ontario, (though that was downplayed) and now the Mississippi. This is a complete end time move. And those reactors in Japan will be burning down for 10 000 years or more unless they put them out, and pull out their advanced tech to clean up this earth, which can be done with frequencies.

In addition the middle east is inundated with nano dust from depeleted uranium and so is europe, asia and the world.

We've gone beyond whether some children want to abuse their health and their self esteem by covering their faces.

Even whether humans wish to wear clothes at all.

We've gotten far past this point.

We need to envision an entire world, including the middle east, that is far beyond these petty, kiddy programs everyone is running.

And we need to draw in our help for a dream of a eutopia beyond our imagination. Though I have written up something that as a human with my full memories blocked, I can see, the full extent is to raise further, for the world I depict in the link below is still anthill tech.

We need to put it in writing and post it on our walls. And it cannot involve divisions. Oppression of one gender or race by clothing, or custom.

It cannot involve following anything that is not the highest Love and Freedom and Equality and Collective Sharing, so all of our religions and bibles and economic policies, and media have to be weeded to pull out all control, war, forcing, demands, retaliation, punishment, and only shine LOVELIGHT. Only see the light squares.

I encourage everyone thats been on this thread to join me on my new thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The World I want to See


I have this formally requested on my wall, and already the rain stopped and the sun is shining, and the message came in that we were going to have the fallout around us, cleaned up.

For a look at what lies beyond our kiddy religious controls and rules (not to say the message of the great teachers, Yeshua and Budda should not be examined, and meditated upon and acted upon. I've experienced Yeshua, in his robe, whiter than white, purity and gentle loving kind service to others, who would never harm another not even in self defense let alone as punishments for not following the dicates or mores of their fathers, families or fascist rulers) To what growing up means. It sure doesnt mean women cover their faces either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are some of the publicly available informational/digital holographic technologies. Holographic interactive rooms and systems where one can experience through the senses of seeing, hearing, touching, feeling and interacting with objects. I'm adding in some other food for thought technologies such as technology human body part replacements, limbs, organs, artificial eyesight for the blind and so on that humans already have available today. Imagine what the military and black ops have in their possession if the following below listed technologies are already available (information wise and direct) to the public.

After reviewing some of the below articles and videos, use your imagination than stop and think a little bigger and imagine other advanced galactic civilizations out there hundreds of millions of years ahead of earth technology. Than try to imagine yet other civilizations far more advanced than those beyond this galaxy some of which are let's say billions of years ahead of earth technology (It's always easier to imagine something when using numbers, time-frames and calculations. -) I realize this may not mean much for some of you but then try to imagine yet other more advanced civilizations beyond gazillions of Galaxies out there – Eventually if one steps out of this 'infinite' inwards Universe they catch up with the EU's or (Extra-universals) outside of this universe/system/creation/technology beyond all human understanding – The Designers/Creators of this universal system that not only created it but parented all life throughout the entire 'Infinite' inwards universe/creation/technology with unimaginable channels/stations/dimensions/realities/existences and so on.

Originally posted by Freeborn
But the answer to your question is simply this; we aren't in 'some Middle Eastern/Central Asian society' we are in a Western European society.

A Western European society which prides itself on freedom, fairness and tolerance.

It sounds to me as if you are veering towards the ''they wouldn't let Christians build a church in Saudi Arabia'' fallacy.

Who is being hurt by a few people adopting an alternative and - some may say - bizarre way of dressing ?

Originally posted by Freeborn
If their traditions and customs contradict our own then they should respect that just as we respect their traditions and customs when visiting their countries.

But they don't contradict our own customs. There is no law in England which says that someone can not cover up their face in public. You are only obliged to show your face if a police officer requests you to do so.

In the bitterness of winter, I will sometimes be covered from head to foot in clothing, only showing my eyes. I don't see a valid argument to make the way that I dress illegal.

Therefore, the arguments in support of the banning of the burqa/niqab are based on cultural prejudice and discrimination - a concept that is alien to what our country stands for.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Respect should be mutual and cut both ways.
Seems to me it's mainly just one way at present.

Yes, respect is mutual.

Look, Freeborn, you come across as a good egg, but surely you can see that legally limiting the way that a woman can dress is not something that we should tolerate.

To paraphrase the quote that has sometimes been attributed to Voltaire: ''I may disagree with the way you dress but I will defend to the death your right to dress that way''.

In Africa it is perhaps sad to see tribal dress and bare-breasted women disappearing.
This is happening due to the influence of both Christian and Islamic missionaries, or the expansion of especially fundamentalist versions bleeding into former animist areas.
I read that in Uganda the Buganda tribe, which went virtually naked a few decades back, is now judging women who wear short dresses and sleeves.
Here in South Africa one could see bear-chested women in rural areas in the 1980s.
Now women are harassed by men for wearing short skirts and short sleeves, or trousers too!

However, Islamic areas are much harsher on dress.
Many African women now wear West-African type dresses with a tied head-scarf, or Western dress.
But the Somali and immigrant Muslim women are completely dressed from head to toe.

I think dress goes beyond rational issues, and becomes symbolic of cultural change.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


It seems particularly ironic that you use Voltaire and Western values and standards to defend the rights and freedoms of these people when the very same people openly admit that given the chance they would deny us those very same rights and freedoms.

The OP highlights an instance where they demand the right to do as they choose whilst imposing their values on others and deny other's the very same right to do as they choose.

I know I more or less repeated myself there but the hypocrisy, double standards and total disdain for other's is so obvious to me that I am amazed other's can't, or is it won't, see it.

Seems to me that some people are so scared to be called racist and have become so conditioned by the Politically Correct that they are incapable of independant thought and have a deep rooteed inability to cast any dispersion on minorities regardless of the facts or the truth.

reply to post by Freeborn

I also sometimes wonder about this US term "minorities".
I think one can have native minorities, or minorities that have been in place for a very long time (decades or centuries), and they cannot go back to a "parent" originating culture or country.
However, minorities who follow a culture where current countries exist that practice that culture as a minority when they indeed come from a cultural majority in another country are simply visitors.
As such one should ask how they treat visitors and minorities in their own countries.
Western freedoms should be for Western people, and unless they choose to defect or apostate, their mosques and manner of dress should be regulated in kind to what they do to visitors and minorities in their majority countries.
It is polite to wear head-scarves and veils in Muslim countries, and in many it is law.
Similarly, they should not complain when face-veils are considered rude and illegal in Western countries.

In most Western countries a woman can't legally smoke a joint in the street (even if it's a custom in her village), or a man can't whip his wife in public, and in Germany you may not wear a Nazi outfit.
So Western freedoms are not open-ended.

So the day they make walking bare-breasted legal for women (and men) in public in Islamic states - that is the day one can start the tit-for-tat argument as offered by Sherlock Holmes.
It's not about what women can do in one culture. It's about the mutual respect between cultures.
And our Western/northern culture is not well respected in Islamic countries.

Originally posted by Freeborn
It seems particularly ironic that you use Voltaire and Western values and standards to defend the rights and freedoms of these people when the very same people openly admit that given the chance they would deny us those very same rights and freedoms.

How is that ironic ?

I would consider it to be rather apt and supportive of my point.

Originally posted by Freeborn
The OP highlights an instance where they demand the right to do as they choose whilst imposing their values on others and deny other's the very same right to do as they choose.

Who are ''they'' ?

As I've pointed out, time and time again, it is illegal to threaten and intimidate people in Britain. The story in the OP is an example of people allegedly violating this law.

The apparent perpetrators have committed a crime, and hopefully will be brought to justice.

What do you want ? Muslim perpetrators receiving stiffer sentences than non-Muslims for the same crime ?

I'm struggling to work out - other than gnawing and ignorant Islamophobia - why people are so upset by the crime that has apparently taken place in the story in the OP.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I know I more or less repeated myself there but the hypocrisy, double standards and total disdain for other's is so obvious to me that I am amazed other's can't, or is it won't, see it.

What hypocrisy and double-standards ?

Spell it out for us !

Originally posted by Freeborn
Seems to me that some people are so scared to be called racist and have become so conditioned by the Politically Correct that they are incapable of independant thought and have a deep rooteed inability to cast any dispersion on minorities regardless of the facts or the truth.

It's got nothing to do with any particular race, religion or minority.

An independent appraisal will show you that everybody in Britain - regardless of race, creed or nationality - are subject to the same laws.

If others want to twist it into a racial or religious issue, then so be it. However, let's not let that get in the way of an objective and critical analysis of the situation.