It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman In Black Burka Kicked Out Of Obama Campaign Event

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
She was removed for heckling, not for wearing a burka. Typical spin from partisan hacks.


See! She wasn't even removed for the freaking Burqa!!!!!!!




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 


Oh, so you weren't implying I wasn't smart enough for this thread, but because my ideas don't line up with yours I don't belong in this thread? I get it.

Yes, I do know what a security risk is. No, I don't think the TSA should be present, but I think scanning people is probably more egalitarian than blanket telling muslims what they can, cannot wear.

Regardless of when the burqa started being used, and who advocates its use, there are some muslims who wish to protect their modesty in this way. Who the hell are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   


Typical spin from partisan hacks.


pot calling the kettle
edit on 8-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
What if we all went around with our faces covered?
Invent a new religion that requires this of both men and women.

These muslim folks even insist that their Driver's licence photo show them with their "masks".

Do you think that we would be able to do this too?
Like the old saying: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

After all freedom of expression, freedom to practice our new religion, freedom to wear whatever we want to.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


You know what, make that religion, if you want to do that. If that's how you want to worship your god, then do it.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



covers the required body parts.


If you can wear a mask, like with a burqa, then why can't you go naked.

I can respect standing up for that liberty than the oppressive, security risk burqa.

Why sacrifice the liberty of being able to run around naked?

Why don't nudist deserve the same level of liberty?

Oh, and being drunk in public is against the law. At least here in CA.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



If you can wear a mask, like with a burqa, then why can't you go naked.


If you really need an answer to this question, I feel sorry for you. Fact is, at this point, all you are doing is trolling. You don't like the burka, fine, don't wear one. No one is forcing YOU to wear a burka are they? Again, if other countries do it, and the people accept it, that's their problem. If women in the US want to wear a burka, who cares?



I can respect standing up for that liberty than the oppressive, security risk burqa.


Good god get over yourself. The burka is just a dress with a hat and scarf.

Your "it's a security risk" argument is weak at best. Why? Because any woman wearing a dress can do the exact same thing, the "mask" you refer to doesn't make a lick of difference if the person is going to blow themselves up.

They ain't gonna hide the bomb on their head.


Why sacrifice the liberty of being able to run around naked?


Well, we do try to not scar children, and we do try to not have people sexually assaulted. That is the benefit of clothing, horny a holes don't get stupid ideas.


Why don't nudist deserve the same level of liberty?


really? Have you seen the average nudist? It's not a pretty sight.


Oh, and being drunk in public is against the law. At least here in CA.


There's your problem. You live in California.


Actually no it's not, what you are referring to is 647(f) which clearly states:


(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance,
or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care
for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of
his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any
drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public
way.


Source: www.leginfo.ca.gov...

As you can see, simply being drunk in public is no crime, as long as you aren't an ass, or pass out on the sidewalk.
edit on 9-5-2012 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


completely understandable! ban burkas! problem solved..

(wondering why women choose Islam anyways... seems a bit masochistic)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Just stating the reality (IMHO)

Fictional story - My name is Bob and I own a Harley Davidson motorcycle. I wear a plain leather jacket when I ride and a black helmet. There is a biker group called the "Warthogs". They ride together and wear black leather jackets with a "Warthogs" logo. The "Warthogs" are also involved in drug dealing...I am not.

Ok...so Bob is just Bob. He isn't affiliated with the "Warthogs". He, therefore, shouldn't be grouped into a group to which he doesn't belong. If I say "The Warthogs are a bunch of drug dealers"...Bob is not included in that statement. However, if Bob chooses to wear a "Warthog" jacket and begin riding with that group...then my statement includes Bob whether he personally deals drugs or not. Simple, right?

Part of the problem here (and I'm referring to prior pages in this thread) is that "Muslim" and "Black" (which are personal statements) have been adopted (or retained) by groups that can be "problems". "Muslims" defined as people who practice Islam are not the problem...but "Terrorists" and "Islamic Fanatics" are. "Blacks" defined as people with brown skin and possibly from Africa are not the problem...but fanatics (example: Sharpton and Jackson) are.

So here we have the problem. The "problem" groups have decided that what defines them as a group is something inherent to some people who aren't really part of the group. For example...Bob can avoid wearing a jacket with the "Warthog" logo....black people and Muslim people can not simply change their color or religion.

So how do we fix this? Can this be fixed? A "problem" group can basically enlist others who are not affiliated with their group, simply by claiming ownership of an inherent trait. In turn, they make other people who disagree with their group, "racist". But isn't this the plan?

If...and I say "if" because it is not always the case...the inducted individuals don't want to be associated with such groups, they have to find a way to distance themselves. They can not share some views and then say "I'm not one of them". Basically...as sad as it is to say...these individuals (if they are the majority) need to either distance or distinguish themselves from the group. They have to disavow the group. And...again sad...may have to take steps to not appear to be part of the group. If not...if they walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk, they have to accept the "branding" of being one of the group.

A real sucky situation...isn't it.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 



Oh, so you weren't implying I wasn't smart enough for this thread, but because my ideas don't line up with yours I don't belong in this thread? I get it.


No, I was implying that you don't know what a security risk is or that you intentionally are disregarding what actually happened to play the "I defend these batman suit wearing women because I'm cool and such". Hence I advised you to leave the topic because you seem a little too emotional to handle facts.


Yes, I do know what a security risk is. No, I don't think the TSA should be present, but I think scanning people is probably more egalitarian than blanket telling muslims what they can, cannot wear.


She was allowed inside. No discrimination. She started heckling, she got removed. No discrimination. But somewhere inside your heads she is being discriminated against. Well guess by who she is getting discriminated? Who is forcing her to wear what she wears simply because she is a woman? A more misogynistic and downright barbaric tradition I do not know.


Regardless of when the burqa started being used, and who advocates its use, there are some muslims who wish to protect their modesty in this way. Who the hell are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do?


No no no. You should research something before you defend it and look like an idiot to those who have done even the tiniest amount of research. This is not about modesty it is about subjugation of women to men. Nowhere in the Quran does it state women should go around looking like batman because if men get a glimpse of her ankle they might be sexually aroused...that line of thinking is too outdated to make sense.

But if you still want to defend them, fine, that is your right after all. I would advise you to research how many of these women are being forced to do what they do. You are not defending the right of these women, but the right to subjugate these women as a man. There is no equality nor freedom in this. And it's only extremists and delusional folk who subscribe to something as extreme as a burqa.

Do take what happened in Iran pre '79 and after '79 as a warning, i.e pre-Islamic extremism and after Islamic extremism. Look at women's rights and how fast they deteriorate. Still, if you insist on taking your country in that direction, that is your choice. A very bad and ignorant and stupid one, but hey, who am I to warn you right? After all, you are god and know everything better without even having done ANY research. Correct?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Can I alert you all to the fact that the woman was not wearing a burka.

The video showed a woman in black from the back and with one arm held by security. They strong armed her out.

She in fact looks like a woman in mourning and is probably wearing the military pins of a deceased loved one.

You Americans are going to eat each other in the end.
edit on 9-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The burka brings annoying double standards to the UK and no doubt elsewhere on many occasions, ID and facial identification etc.

It's funny though, Islam forcing women to dress up as a ninja. Nothing spells out "Slave to a desert religion" like the groups of burka ninjas you see.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Migah
reply to post by neo96
 


completely understandable! ban burkas! problem solved..

(wondering why women choose Islam anyways... seems a bit masochistic)


Was the woman in the video wearing a burka or were you lied to?

How are Muslim women, roughly 900 million, wrong and you are right to call them masochistic?

Do you follow the juxtapositions I am presenting to you?
edit on 9-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Mary, the mother of Jesus as you call her was a fictious character in a pure fabrication. It's like i would use Superman to prove a point...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Malynn
 


That doesn't dismiss the fact that some people on here are so convinced that burqa = evil that this point is lost on them.

Who are the partisan hacks now?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Newsflash: There is no heaven and Christians get their jollies from brainwashing and persecuting others.

In fact, ALL religions are fake.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I still think you're a hateful person that wants to control what others wear.

What religion do YOU subscribe to?

As THE_PROFESSIONAL said, let's remove all crosses, the 10 commandments from courtrooms, nativity scenes, references to Christmas/Hannukah and anything else that promotes Christianity or Judaism.

If you wouldn't advocate such a thing, then shut the hell up hypocrite.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Islam is INHERENTLY masochistic.

Yep.
Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Qur'an (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females"
And then of course, in a court of law, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a mans.


Originally posted by The Sword
some people on here are so convinced that burqa = evil that this point is lost on them.

For the sake of this conversation .... burqa = security risk.
Just a a full nuns habit = security risk.
Or any other getup that hides the face or provides cover for potentially harmful items.
As for a burqa being evil ... IMHO it's something invented by men to subjugate women.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Again, If you can wear a mask, like with a burqa, then why can't you go naked.

I am asking you to answer the question, because your whole argument ignores the reality that laws clearly establish public dress codes, and banning the burqa would not be any different.

The burka is NOT just a dress with a hat and scarf.

You are ignoring reality.

I am not arguing for public nudity, so I will not bother to debate you on the issue, only point out that there are those who disagree with your claims about the hazards of public nudity, the effects on children and all that.

There is plenty of evidence that suppression of ones sexuality is what leads to perversion. It is my opinion that the whole burqa thing is more likely to lead to horny a holes don't getting stupid ideas. Considering the customs of people living in countries that require the wearing of the burqa, the evidence is considerably in my favor.

When reason for arrest is any one willing to complain about someone not exercising care for their own safety or the safety of others due to intoxication, then simply being drunk in public is a crime. The drunk person doesn't have to do anything wrong, all that is needed is someone thinking that person might do something wrong.







 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join