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.

 

French ban on Islamic face veil comes into force

page: 33
44
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestWood
The Pieds-Noirs were the french people living in Algeria. You're speaking of the Harkis, these native algerians who were fighting for the Algeria to stay french... Maybe because the french colonisation was less tough than told since.


Dear Westwood,
Yes I believe you're right, although I am not sure if Pieds-Noir was limited to only the French colonialists or included also the French Algerians. I thought it was both, I could be mistaken. In any case the Pieds-Noir did fight on the French side, but I was referring to the Algerians who also fought on the French side. I'll do some more reading, thank you for the enlightenment.

en.wikipedia.org...

"After Algeria became independent in 1962, more than one million Pieds-Noirs of French nationality were evacuated to mainland France. Upon arriving, they suffered ostracism because of leftist propaganda claiming they had profited upon native Muslims and they had caused the war, thus the political turmoil surrounding the collapse of the French Fourth Republic.[2] In popular culture, the community is often represented as feeling removed from French culture while longing for Algeria.[2][4] Thus, the recent history of the pieds-noirs has been imprinted with a theme of double alienation from both their native homeland and their adopted land."

en.wikipedia.org...

Harki (adjective from the Arabic harka, standard Arabic haraka حركة, "war party" or "movement", i.e., a group of volunteers, especially soldiers) is the generic term for Muslim Algerians who served as auxiliaries in the French Army during the Algerian War from 1954 to 1962

Edit - I will edit my original post to reflect this. Thanks again WestWood.
Further Edit - Seems I can't Edit my original post on Page 1.

Regards,
T
edit on 14-4-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
 




 



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
 




 



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


While Europe has fought its share of wars like all civilizations, Islam has been continuously at a war of aggression since the conception of the religion.


So has Europe, even Pre-Christian. So your 'point' contradicts itself.





At what point in time do you start to realize that Islam is the problem?



At what point to you learn to have a discussion that deals in fact and not hyperbole and xenophobia?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Sorry, but I am afraid you have gotten lost in your ideology, and fail to look at the situation realistically.

Sorry, but there is nothing xenophobic or racists about standing up to religious extremism.

Putting laws into place to stop the religious extremists, in this case, is standing up for womens' rights and defending one's own culture against the real xenophobes and racists who promote this religious extremism.

"Religious fundamentalists and zealots" are a very real threat to a stable government.

The woman wearing the burqa isn't the religious zealot, the man who forces her to wear the burqa is the zealot, and most likely it is her father and her husband and what ever religious leader they follow.

The people suffering from paranoia, are the ones who watch this abomination, and are too frozen with fear to do something about it.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The bought and paid for politicians allow them to migrate because it lowers wages and raises property prices, all the while providing cheap excuses for eliminating rights, most of which is done under the excuse of multiculturalism. Getting rid of politicians who support this multiculturalism to the point of giving special privileges of some over others is the first step in fixing these problems.

Defending one's culture and thereby rights and beliefs is standing up against the PTB, which these days is primarily the oil companies.

The future probably will require stripping all religions of the privileges they currently enjoy, and start treating them for what they are, organized political entities designed for profit.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You know honestly I was never a big fan of the Sufferage movement and tend to favor Patrician Law that makes male heads of household the law within their own house.

It's great that some men want to defer to their women, and take a submissive posture to them, and be led by those who notoriously can't make up or change their minds on a whim, often just for attention or to exert some kind of control, but I honestly am not one of them.

If a man wants to see his woman dress a certain way I have no problems with that quite honestly.

After all who we couple and mate with is a matter of personal preference.

Women who embody beauty in the eyes of most men, with beauty being in the eye of the beholder look for different things.

Don't tell me what I should look for and want and how to respond to and treat my woman, and I will return the favor.

While my attitude will seem shocking and cavalier and chauvenistic for it's honesty to many, the truth is do you really want the government regulating your relationships with your significant other?

That's the crux of your argument.

Do you want to marry a woman or do you want to marry your government, because when you start letting goverment regulate aspects of personal relationships like what women aren't permitted to wear that is pleasing to their men you are doing just that.

I don't need any help in the bedroom or my home, I do just fine.

I am someone who has been known to take his women in public wearing a collar and leading them by a leash, which they adore for the attention it gets them.

Often the people who approach us are women who are not shocked and offended but intriqued and excited.

It's bad enough many people are determined to not have any real fun in life as they bend to the moral edicts of the thought police but must you insist on making life such an insufferable bore for everyone.

Life is full of infinite possibilities, one size does not fit all.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Sorry, but Europe actually pulled back from colonialism, and empires, and has had numerous stretches of peace, while Islam has been continuously at war. A quick review of history proves you wrong.

I have consistently based my arguments on facts. I am sorry that the historical facts feed your paranoia and xenophobia.

And don't kid yourself, the paranoia and xenophobia accusations are just as off base as the racism accusations. These numerous threads are aimed at one particular group of trouble makers, who create problems for everyone else.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The bought and paid for politicians allow them to migrate because it lowers wages and raises property prices, all the while providing cheap excuses for eliminating rights, most of which is done under the excuse of multiculturalism. Getting rid of politicians who support this multiculturalism to the point of giving special privileges of some over others is the first step in fixing these problems.



The excuse for eliminating rights is based on your own fear of people from other cultures being a threat and your willingness to support the government that asserts that.

While yes the government expertly plays on those fears, most especially in Evangelical Christians who would very much like a theocracy of their own patterned off of their own beliefs, it still requires fear in the populace of those from other cultures to sell it too.

Our own religious extremists have made constant inroads in the last 200 years to force morality on the people often with disasterous consequences as in the case of Prohibition.

Incidentally Prohibition would have not likely succeeded if women had not won the right to vote shortly before.

Their vote was quickly and primarily used to insist men not go out and drink but be home with them.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

This gave rise to a powerful criminal syndicate and bloody violent streets as criminal gangs fought over the then illegal liqour trade.

There is no percentage in trying to please the unreasonable.

Bottom line stop worrying about what everyone else is doing to try to enjoy life on this insane planet, mind your own business and be your own man, and or person, and the government can't manipulate your fears, and politicians who get elected catering to those fears can't get in office.

This actually makes sense, because you can't change everyone else, but you can at least change yourself.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saracen1



Didn`t you say in an earlier post that you attended white supremacist camps, or was that popeye?
Either way, the general gist of your arguments lead me to conclude that your (and popeyes), sympathies lay in that direction.

I love the way you explain away all the pillaging,rapes and plunder of the crusades as medieval collateral damage

I don`t think i have to mention the number of civillian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan here..oh i forgot they were collateral damage, you see they didn`t mean to kill all those people and spread urainium all over the place, they just got...... well kinda in the way as we laid waste to entire nations.

Have you seen any of the videos coming out of Iraq/abu graib afghan etc...with yanks posing beside the the bodies of the civillians they`d just murdered.

You see it`s easy to make accusations...but you really ought to look closer to home.



Foolish, I should have known not to use sarcasm with you. No, I have not, and never will, attend Aryan camps. But I love your comments on a latter note about getting rights from a few good lawyers. Ever thought the lawyers and the jurys and the judges are fed up with catering to the muslim nation?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Dear Proto,

And in one fell swoop you completely demean women and their rights, yet spend page after page arguing for their rights. I had sworn to myself I wouldn't ever respond to you again, but if there is one thing I despise it is a macho, and you Sir are one.

How can you even debate this topic when you're stuck in the 50s? How can you even write such nonsense as this:

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by poet1b
 

It's great that some men want to defer to their women, and take a submissive posture to them, and be led by those who notoriously can't make up or change their minds on a whim, often just for attention or to exert some kind of control, but I honestly am not one of them.


Women's right mean anything to you or do you see all women as being "notorious for changing their mind on a whim often just for attention".

Thanks for finally showing your colours.

Regards,
T



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I hope you are being sarcastic.

That is all fine and dandy, until you start slapping her around should she choose to start ignoring your need to control her, which is why we are not going to allow men to parade their women covered from head to toe, because we have decided that we are not going to allow you to hide your abuse.

But hey, if society should allow you to beat your woman, then society should also look the other way if that woman's father or brother, or someone who cares about her, or she herself, puts a bullet in your head. or uses some other means to end your domination of said woman.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I think France is very brave to pass such law and enforce it, especially in today's climate... Though I wonder do they not fear a extremist backlash amount their Islamic population?

If I remember correctly there was a news paper article I read describing how a male journalist wore a Burka and and black robes and posed as a woman getting a flight from the UK. He managed to get through UK airport security without being asked to show his face once!

I don't think you would be able to do it now but I do think the UK shouldn't be afraid to put their foot down on a matter and stop declaring it "Politically Incorrect".



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Our own religious extremists have made constant inroads in the last 200 years to force morality on the people often with disasterous consequences as in the case of Prohibition.


Actually religious extremists have consistently lost ground in their desires to dictate the morality of others over the last 200 years.

Control over women and sexuality is one the biggest tools used by religious extremists.

If you honestly seek to end control of religions over your life, then you would support laws which defend womens' rights as well as men.

The burqa is a tool used to control and dominate women, and it should be banned.

edit on 14-4-2011 by poet1b because: typo



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


I practice a safe, sane, consensual alternative lifestyle in a loving atmosphere of trust and complete communication with women who seek out men with a certain mindset and sexual skills.

It's a lifestyle that dates back to Rome and Patrician Law and no one man or women who participates in it does so for any reason other than they have a right to make such a choice.

It's not a choice everyone would make.

But it's a choice people should be permitted to make, providing it makes them happy and they are hurting no one in that process.

Great care is taken by responsible participants to make sure someone who wants to enter into such a lifestyle are doing so for the right reasons, an intelligent choice of what makes them emotionally and sexually happy, and not because of some mental condition that surrounds past unconsensual abuse in their life that makes them want to recreate it.

I share this simply because no, not all people think alike, and yes in fact the women who participate in this lifestyle as both dominants and submissives, do so willingly and of their own volition.

Do I want the government to infringe on that because you don't understand that or wouldn't make the same choice?

No, I sure don't.

I point this out because the truth is some men who prefer being men, in that natuaral sense, have ideas of their own in how to structure relationships that has nothing to do with religion at all.

How A man wants to interact with A woman is entirely between that man and woman.

Running away from relationships is not that hard for any person man or woman who truly doesn't want to be in it.

In fact if you do an Internet Search you will find no shortage of women who actually want to have a 1950's style relationship and to create one with a man, by initiating one themselves based on those principles. It is actually a sub genre of the alternative lifestyle.

Should they be denied to pursue a life and lifestyle that makes them happy and completes them and compliments them as a woman and an individual?

Simply because you don't want to live in such a way yourself?

Think about it.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I hope you are being sarcastic.

That is all fine and dandy, until you start slapping her around should she choose to start ignoring your need to control her, which is why we are not going to allow men to parade their women covered from head to toe, because we have decided that we are not going to allow you to hide your abuse.

But hey, if society should allow you to beat your woman, then society should also look the other way if that woman's father or brother, or someone who cares about her, or she herself, puts a bullet in your head. or uses some other means to end your domination of said woman.



Actually it's her need that she be controlled, it's her desire, and part of an attention game, based on how they want to interact.

So since I am actually informing you of this, what is it you imagine I am hiding.

What I am simply displaying is the courage to say, hey, I and other people of both sexes aren't all like you would like us to be.

Further that we like being different.

Further that we really don't want you telling us how to enjoy our relationships, sexuality, and how we enjoy interacting with one another.

Your angry reactions and immediate rush to violence actually displays the overly macho mindset you are decyring.

You simply aren't reasoned and well rounded enough to see it.

Believe me it takes a lot of maturity and personal wisdom to get over the societal constructs to actually permit a woman to enjoy what she would like to enjoy, as opposed to the vision of a madonna that her father, or brother would enjoy seeing her as.

So in reality what you are saying is you violently reserve the right to make women conform to your standards by killing anyone who indulges them in enjoying a different standard.

In my lifestyle you might very well kill your daughter or sisters consensual lover, but she will never forgive you for it, and you will have allienated her for the rest of your lives.

Is that what you really want, because that's what you would really be doing.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


By the way in case you really don't get why I brought all this up, is your angry reactions to a woman chosing to live an alternative lifestyle where she enjoys things that are not of your standards displays that you really aren't interested in a woman's right to make her 'own' choice, but to foster an environment where she makes 'your' choice, by up to and including killing anyone that permits her to make a choice other than the one you would impose on her.

So after you have killed your Kinky, freespirited daughter's or sister's lover, what are you going to tell her?

It's for her own good, that you know better?

That in time she will come to see it your way?

That's simply another form of domination that's all about you and not all about them.

So in reality how are you any different than the Muslim men you decry?

You aren't, and in reality are a bit more dangerous because you can't even man up and admit that it's simply about women being 'free' to be excatly what you 'want' them to be.

Including up to and making laws that that deny them the right to be what you don't want them to be, and including murdering in some vendetta based macho act anyone who would indulge them in living differently than how you want them to be.

The difference betwen you and I is I can actually be honest about the fact that I enjoy women who think and act a certain way and enjoy certain things I do, and that not all men or women would enjoy those same things.

That and the fact that I would give every man and woman the right to make up their own minds in that regard, where you would prefer the law, and violence be used to impose your own standards on everyone.

That you try to sell it as being for women's own good, and the good of the state and the collective is just rediculous, it's all about you and how you want women to be.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



As proud as you are to be, I'm assuming, a swinger, or somthing to that lifestyle, I do not see any connection to your "sexually liberated females" and the control forced upon the Muslim women by thier dominant, abusive bretheren. And aside from this, I don't see a promo for being in the lifestyle you advertise as being effiecient in proving any point on the political plane.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Basically, you completely ignored what I wrote, and created your own straw man argument to knock down.

I don't care what you need in the bedroom to float your boat. Personally, I never needed such props. Just keep it in the bedroom, because like most other people, I don't want to see it.

My observation is that the more macho the man, the more he needs to feel he is in charge, the more dominated by his woman the man tends to be. Tell yourself what ever you need to believe.

Personally, I like strong willed intelligent women. Lionesses tend to have incredible sexual appetites. The women in my family, and the women I get involved with, are pretty much all that way. You would probably avoid them like the plague.

I must have missed all those 50ties sitcoms where the women wore burqas. Seems I remember the women in those fifties relationships tended to be sensitive to fashion, and often dressed provocatively. They wore bikinis on the beaches, and weren't afraid to express their opinions to the men in their lives. Their opinions were given as much weight as the men.

So far, what you have described is a situation where the woman is a willing participant, and that is fine. The problem is when the woman is not a willing participant.

There is a line drawn where role play goes too far, and when one person wants out of what becomes a physical, mental, and emotionally abusive relationship, then that person should have access to the help they will need to escape their abuser.

Just because some women want to be dominated, doesn't mean we should allow practices that enable men to isolate their women from the mainstream of society so that they can physically, mentally, and emotionally control and abuse them.

Are you saying that you have to right to physically, mentally, and emotionally control and abuse women even when it is against their will?


edit on 14-4-2011 by poet1b because: add, missing phrase, ""I get involved with"



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



As proud as you are to be, I'm assuming, a swinger, or somthing to that lifestyle, I do not see any connection to your "sexually liberated females" and the control forced upon the Muslim women by thier dominant, abusive bretheren. And aside from this, I don't see a promo for being in the lifestyle you advertise as being effiecient in proving any point on the political plane.


No swingers are another alternative lifestyle all together, and honestly I think this is all relevant because while many people here really are just trying to impose morallity, lots of people live right within our society, born and raised in America of White Anglo Saxon, Roman Catholic and Jewish stock that do practice alternative lifestyles, that many would no understand of or approve of based on societal and religious constructs.

Just like you don't even know let alone understand what my alternative lifestyle is, which is D/s and BDSM the practice of dominance and submission and discipline, you really don't know much about the Muslim Lifestyle either, other than you aren't one, and you aren't real sure why they are, and that they frighten you because they are different.

What I wanted to display and feel I have, is no, it's not about woman's rights, it's about creating an atmosphere where women have the right to behave in a way that you feel that they should, and to a lesser extent be treated the way you feel they should.

I have known a lot of women in my day and each one has been unique and special in her own way.

A one size fits all approach really doesn't work with them.

You simply believe probably based on your own upbringing that all women want to be treated as a madonna on a pedastool, and if they aren't that they are unhappy.

The western mindset for the most part is a woman must either be a madonna, chaste and virtuous and proper, or she is a whore.

There is no happy in between.

The Madonna should be worshipped, given every deference, always protected and cherished and revered, respected and obeyed.

The whore should be cast out, sullied, defamed, rejected and demeaned.

A woman not living as a madonna is typically considered to be 'troubled' on drugs, have low self esteem, be mentally disturbed or troubled, or forced to live in a less than madonna like state because of some mean domineering man.

In reality all you are doing is taking a choice away from a woman, saying you can't wear something, because we don't think you really want to or enjoy or want to wear it, because we wouldn't wear it ourselves.

You neglect to consider all people are different, you neglect to allow people to make their own choice, by taking a choice away from them and insisting it's for their own good.

So who is attempting to dominate them now?

You!

Who is taking away their choice now?

You!

Who is forcing people to conform to a certain image?

You!

Who believes that every woman wants to live the way you imagine that they want to live?

You!

Who is willing to fine people for thousands of dollars for not conforming?

You!

Amazingly you call that freedom, I call it a control freak and someone terribly insecure.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join