BF2S Forums A Disappointing Lack Of Appeasement

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The media shows suicide bombings and other violent acts by Muslims, so that must be the way it is.

some of us have seen it up close.  including in africa before 9/11 and such.  but, what do we know.  the eyes lie i guess.  i should read the koran, thats the real truth.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant, which is- yes, it does happen.  Is that the only thing Muslims do?  No. 

Should I inform you guys every time a Muslim acts benevolently (or when Muslims come out to denounce terrorist acts)?

Don't be an idiot.

konfusion wrote:

Covering your face (entirely) should be prohibited - I don't care what your religion is, but it's intimidating and could be dangerous.

-kon

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

konfusion wrote:

I'm scared of going to Whitechapel - it feels like I leave London entirely when I go there. I'm currently at City University, and as I'm neither arabic looking, nor intolerant to women actually showing their faces, I feel like I'm a minority there.

England needs to learn from France, and come down on these people. Covering your face (entirely) should be prohibited - I don't care what your religion is, but it's intimidating and could be dangerous.

-kon

What about covering your face for whatever reason then? When it gets cold sometimes I where a ski-mask, under those laws I would not be allowed to do that.

Also I don't think government should have the authority to say what is/isn't okay to wear like that. While public indecency laws are one thing, since no one wants to see that shit, covering one's face isn't really anything that is frowned upon.

Banning religious symbols? Well suppose I formed "The Church of Dassler" and all PUMA or Adidas clothing was considered scared by us and thus those clothing lines would be banned in public. Seems silly but by those standards we would need to enforce it on ALL religious symbols, not just the commonly known ones.

Last edited by konfusion (2008-12-10 19:06:04)

Dilbert_X wrote:

They let you in?

Flecco wrote:

As far as the covering of the face thing goes, is it publically acceptable for me to walk into a bank with a ski mask/balaclava over my face?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-12-11 02:12:53)

oug wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Who the fuck covers their entire faces in the middle of London? Public indecency laws? I'm sorry, but I if you remove any way of identifying someone, I find that a potential public danger! What do these people do when they travel?

I'm fine with religious symbols, but you can't cover your entire face, or else we can't identify you. You would get stopped by the police if you had a face mask on, and you should get stopped by the police for covering your entire face this way.

-kon

PS: yes, I am serious. I don't mind religious symbols, but you need to be identifiable. Or at LEAST (at the very least) take it off for identity checks.

edit:
At LEAST ban it in airports, no? Imagine the possibilities...

London probably has more cameras on the streets than any other place in the world. That's a good reason for everyone to wear a ski mask!

Why do you sense anonymity to be a threat? I don't understand. Why does the state need to know who you are and what you do at all times if what you do does not infringe other peoples' liberties etc?

I mean ok, I can understand a few checks at times and places where there might be an issue - in a bank for instance - but why would the police need to know what my face looks like when I'm shopping for vegetables or walking the dog? Fuck that!

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

I blame the media.

Yesterdays front page of UK rag.
http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynami … -12-10.jpg
MAD MULA RANTS.
Ok, so if he is MAD and he is RANTING, why then is this deemed front page news? Why would they put a mad mans rant on the front page? If some mad drunk had a rant, would they print that too?

The papers create hysteria. This headline says it all about the British right wing media. They state that he's ranting and he's mad, yet dedicate the front page (along with the obligatory 'babe') to him. Giving him the platform for this hate filled bile he knows he is going to get. The media seams to willingly give these assholes a soap box and access to millions of people.

My Dad reads the star. He is a hard working construction worker who gets 15min's a day to read the paper at work. The star is shinny, flesh filled with cars, babes and anti Muslim articles as its staple. An easy read for ppl who don't have much time on their hands. I have noticed the difference in my fathers attitude towards Muslim since he switched from the Daily Mirror to the Daily Star. Now when talking about Iraqi he says things like, "The Muslims started it attacking NY" I reply. "So the UK should have invaded Poland(catholic country) because the IRA bombed the UK. He is a very intelligent man being feed shit by the media and doesn't have the time or Internet knowledge to read alternative media. Like most of the sheep.

I remember on 9/11, while every paper on the planet had the twin towers burning, taking up the front page. 9/11 had to share the front page with a scantly clad 'babe'

When one of our overtly Christian members of government stated that gay people were the same as pedos, it didn't even make the papers in Britain.

Seams if your a Muslim, you can say anything and get on the front page. If your a Christian you can condemn a whole section of society and give credence to homophobic attacks and not even get a few lines on page 20.

konfusion wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

konfusion wrote:

I'm scared of going to Whitechapel - it feels like I leave London entirely when I go there. I'm currently at City University, and as I'm neither arabic looking, nor intolerant to women actually showing their faces, I feel like I'm a minority there.

England needs to learn from France, and come down on these people. Covering your face (entirely) should be prohibited - I don't care what your religion is, but it's intimidating and could be dangerous.

-kon

What about covering your face for whatever reason then? When it gets cold sometimes I where a ski-mask, under those laws I would not be allowed to do that.

Also I don't think government should have the authority to say what is/isn't okay to wear like that. While public indecency laws are one thing, since no one wants to see that shit, covering one's face isn't really anything that is frowned upon.

Banning religious symbols? Well suppose I formed "The Church of Dassler" and all PUMA or Adidas clothing was considered scared by us and thus those clothing lines would be banned in public. Seems silly but by those standards we would need to enforce it on ALL religious symbols, not just the commonly known ones.

Who the fuck covers their entire faces in the middle of London? Public indecency laws? I'm sorry, but I if you remove any way of identifying someone, I find that a potential public danger! What do these people do when they travel?

I'm fine with religious symbols, but you can't cover your entire face, or else we can't identify you. You would get stopped by the police if you had a face mask on, and you should get stopped by the police for covering your entire face this way.

-kon

PS: yes, I am serious. I don't mind religious symbols, but you need to be identifiable. Or at LEAST (at the very least) take it off for identity checks.

edit:
At LEAST ban it in airports, no? Imagine the possibilities...

rammunition wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

I blame the media.

Yesterdays front page of UK rag.
http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynami … -12-10.jpg
MAD MULA RANTS.
Ok, so if he is MAD and he is RANTING, why then is this deemed front page news? Why would they put a mad mans rant on the front page? If some mad drunk had a rant, would they print that too?

The papers create hysteria. This headline says it all about the British right wing media. They state that he's ranting and he's mad, yet dedicate the front page (along with the obligatory 'babe') to him. Giving him the platform for this hate filled bile he knows he is going to get. The media seams to willingly give these assholes a soap box and access to millions of people.

My Dad reads the star. He is a hard working construction worker who gets 15min's a day to read the paper at work. The star is shinny, flesh filled with cars, babes and anti Muslim articles as its staple. An easy read for ppl who don't have much time on their hands. I have noticed the difference in my fathers attitude towards Muslim since he switched from the Daily Mirror to the Daily Star. Now when talking about Iraqi he says things like, "The Muslims started it attacking NY" I reply. "So the UK should have invaded Poland(catholic country) because the IRA bombed the UK. He is a very intelligent man being feed shit by the media and doesn't have the time or Internet knowledge to read alternative media. Like most of the sheep.

I remember on 9/11, while every paper on the planet had the twin towers burning, taking up the front page. 9/11 had to share the front page with a scantly clad 'babe'

When one of our overtly Christian members of government stated that gay people were the same as pedos, it didn't even make the papers in Britain.

Seams if your a Muslim, you can say anything and get on the front page. If your a Christian you can condemn a whole section of society and give credence to homophobic attacks and not even get a few lines on page 20.

its funny how when ONE mad muslim rants, its written as if all muslims share what the nutter says, with the murdoch media taking over, expect me bile!!!

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Yesterdays front page of UK rag.
http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynami … -12-10.jpg
MAD MULA RANTS.
Ok, so if he is MAD and he is RANTING, why then is this deemed front page news? Why would they put a mad mans rant on the front page? If some mad drunk had a rant, would they print that too?

The papers create hysteria. This headline says it all about the British right wing media. They state that he's ranting and he's mad, yet dedicate the front page (along with the obligatory 'babe') to him. Giving him the platform for this hate filled bile he knows he is going to get. The media seams to willingly give these assholes a soap box and access to millions of people.

My Dad reads the star. He is a hard working construction worker who gets 15min's a day to read the paper at work. The star is shinny, flesh filled with cars, babes and anti Muslim articles as its staple. An easy read for ppl who don't have much time on their hands. I have noticed the difference in my fathers attitude towards Muslim since he switched from the Daily Mirror to the Daily Star. Now when talking about Iraqi he says things like, "The Muslims started it attacking NY" I reply. "So the UK should have invaded Poland(catholic country) because the IRA bombed the UK. He is a very intelligent man being feed shit by the media and doesn't have the time or Internet knowledge to read alternative media. Like most of the sheep.

I remember on 9/11, while every paper on the planet had the twin towers burning, taking up the front page. 9/11 had to share the front page with a scantly clad 'babe'

When one of our overtly Christian members of government stated that gay people were the same as pedos, it didn't even make the papers in Britain.

Seams if your a Muslim, you can say anything and get on the front page. If your a Christian you can condemn a whole section of society and give credence to homophobic attacks and not even get a few lines on page 20.

its funny how when ONE mad muslim rants, its written as if all muslims share what the nutter says, with the murdoch media taking over, expect me bile!!!

That sounds a bit like what you do with Americans, one does something wrong, you call the rest terrorists.

Konfusion wrote:

I'm scared of going to Whitechapel - it feels like I leave London entirely when I go there.