I knew I would crack one day......burka rage

[Serpo]

Burka rage' teacher faces jail in France after ripping off Muslim woman's face veil

By Peter Allen
Last updated at 2:12 PM on 14th October 2010


A retired English teacher was facing three years in prison today for ripping off a Muslim's face veil in the world's first known case of 'burka rage'. (Posed by model)

A retired teacher is facing three years in prison for ripping off a Muslim’s face veil in the world’s first known case of ‘burka rage’.

The 63-year-old woman, so far only referred to by her first name Marlene, appeared before the Paris Correctional Court to defend her attack on Shaika, 26, who originally comes from the United Arab Emirates.

The happened in February when both women were out shopping in an upmarket suburb of the French capital, with Marlene claiming: ‘For me the wearing of the veil is an aggressive act, there is no burka in my country.’

The case comes at an extremely sensitive time as France has just banned the burka and the niqab following an impassioned public debate more than two years.

Marlene, who is accused of aggravated violence, is said to have ‘lost control’ when she saw Shaika choosing furniture in a department store.

‘I knew I would crack one day,’ said Marlene. ‘This whole saga of the burka was really getting to me.’

Speaking in English to her victim, Marlene, who has taught in Morocco and Saudi Arabia, said: ‘I told her to take off the veil she had on her face. I grabbed and pulled it.

‘To me wearing a full veil is an attack on being a woman. As a woman, I felt attacked.’

A few minutes later Marlene is said to have started hitting Shaika, who refused to take her veil off.

‘I went over to her and tore her veil,’ said Marlene in a police report. ‘We came to blows. I was very upset.’

After allegedly slapping Shaika, Marlene bit her hand before successfully removing the veil, shouting: ‘Now I can see your face.’

Security guards had to separate the women, with one describing the fight as being motivated by ‘pure burka rage’.

Shaika suffered cuts and bruises and had to take two days off work. She was so upset that she has now left France and returned to the Emirates, and will not attend today’s court case.

Marlene’s defence for the attack was that ‘we do not wear the burka in my country’ but in fact no ban was in place in February.

Even if it was, it would not be up to people to make citizen’s arrests, said a legal source involved in the case.

Marlene said: ‘I’ve taught in countries like Morocco and Saudi Arabia and know how these women walk three paces behind their husbands.

‘When I saw a burka in a Paris shop I thought it was very provocative. I did not hit or use any violence against this woman. I just wanted to pull her burqa off. I know I shouldn’t have got angry, but I lost it.’

Lotfi Ouled Ben Hafsia, for Shaika, said his client had been living in Paris for three years, but would never return because of the ‘racist attack’.

It is now a criminal offence to wear a burka in France, with woman facing fines and even a prison sentence when the law is enforced in six months time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320392/Retired-teacher-Marlene-faces-jail-ripping-Muslims-veil-case-burka-rage.html

[nunaem]

How dare she not dress like Lady Gaga!! Only whores should be tolerated! ::)

http://bhanks.encblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/081809-lady-gaga.jpghttp://bumpshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Madonna_britney_spears_kiss.jpg


..Or perhaps Marlene would prefer the women-haters dressed up as France's first floozy err... first lady, Carla Bruni:

http://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/carla-bruni1336.jpg


Disgusting. :sarc:

[shakinginmyshoes]

Nunaem,

I am as disgusted as you are by the women dressed like streetwalkers

BUT

burkas enable other kinds of crime:

Like men dressed in them, who then rob / mug / smuggle and can't be identified.

No sluttiness but NO BURKAS either.

[nunaem]

Saying modest women shouldn't wear burkas because dishonest men might disguise themselves in them is akin to saying law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because violent criminals might use them for evil. Besides, muggers could still wear pantyhose or ski masks even with burkas banned.

I do think muslim women should have to take off their burkas to get a driver's license, though.

[Book]

Marlene, who is accused of aggravated violence, is said to have ‘lost control’ when she saw Shaika choosing furniture in a department store.

‘I knew I would crack one day,’ said Marlene.



Marlene watched too much jew teevee that demonizes her innocent Muslim neighbors.

:oo-->

[silver solution]

Saying modest women shouldn't wear burkas because dishonest men might disguise themselves in them is akin to saying law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because violent criminals might use them for evil. Besides, muggers could still wear pantyhose or ski masks even with burkas banned.

I do think muslim women should have to take off their burkas to get a driver's license, though.
I don't think adults should need a state permission slip to travel.

[nunaem]

Saying modest women shouldn't wear burkas because dishonest men might disguise themselves in them is akin to saying law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because violent criminals might use them for evil. Besides, muggers could still wear pantyhose or ski masks even with burkas banned.

I do think muslim women should have to take off their burkas to get a driver's license, though.
I don't think adults should need a state permission slip to travel.


I would agree. What I meant was I don't think peculiar religious-delusions entitle anyone to be treated better than others.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Saying modest women shouldn't wear burkas because dishonest men might disguise themselves in them is akin to saying law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because violent criminals might use them for evil. Besides, muggers could still wear pantyhose or ski masks even with burkas banned


No. Burkas cover your entire identity. A guy wearing a ski mask, because it's unusual, will trigger
normal suspicion when a ski-masked guy walks into a bank.

If burkas become ubiquitous, then burkas walking into a bank won't engender suspicion until it's too late.

We're White westerners. We are a high-trust people. We want / need to see each other's faces / facial expressions in order to be able to continue our high-trust society.

Burkas are a relic of a low-trust society. Bringing them in brings more low trust,.

MORE:

[shakinginmyshoes]

White Westerners are, by and large, law abiding people.

Non-whites are less law-abiding (and measured on a sliding scale). It's mostly the shocking levels of black criminality that caused the push for gun-control, and it was done by pc-addled judges who think "all people are the same," when the reality is, where it's mostly White (90%+) open carry / concealed carry / completely unarmed are all okay, since the vast majority are law-abiding.
Where it's mostly black, it's shockingly criminal, so gun-control *appears* like it ought to be effective. SO the pc-addled judges decided that "since all people are the same" if blacks are crime-prone, so must be White people, so gun-control should work, surely, right?

Burkas are incompatible with White Western societies.
Gun control would never have even arisen as an issue if America had no Blacks / other non-Whites.

[Ash_Williams]

I've heard the argument that allowing burkas will lead to terrorist men dressing up in them in order to blow shit up. Only heard today that people would also use them to rob banks!

If a bank thinks that might happen, and wants to prevent it, they can just put up a frigging sign saying "no face coverings" much as most places say "no shirt no shoes no service." That's between the bank and their customers.

As for terrorism... so far how many burka wearing bombers have snuck in places and blown shit up? Yeah, none. Despite the fact that they can wear them basically everywhere and have had decades to do it. It's typically a dude who has made no attempt to hide his identity because they have a habit of taking credit for what they did anyway. Plus manly-looking figure in a burka strolling into a building with a suitcase is going to stand out like a sore thumb, wearing it would be counterproductive to someone planning to blow something up.

Also if we're into telling people what they must wear in public, to get ahead of what "could happen", then why don't we force pregnant women to wear see-through tops so that we can easily verify that their baby bump isn't actually a bomb? I know I'm scared shitless whenever I see a pregnant women - who knows what she could be hiding.

Japs have an incredibly low rate of violence in japan and even over here where you can get guns easily. And yet there's gun-control in japan. People are just easily scared and will vote to ban things without reason.

[shakinginmyshoes]

If a bank thinks that might happen, and wants to prevent it, they can just put up a frigging sign saying "no face coverings" much as most places say "no shirt no shoes no service." That's between the bank and their customers.


As if.
If burkas got to be a "normal" sight, any bank that posted such a sign would be slammed
hard with civil-rights-violations charges, just as any establishment today would be if they posted a "No blacks or dogs" sign.

Keep out Arab-muslims, burkas won't be an issue.

In Japan, because they are law-abiding, gun control doesn't do the same damage to innocent people as it does in America. Because America has a substantial portion of black/Mexican gangbangers and just general thugs, unarmed Whites are sitting ducks.'
Unarmed Japanese in Japan are NOT sitting ducks, because the other citizens, Japanese all, are not crime-prone.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Saying modest women shouldn't wear burkas because dishonest men might disguise themselves in them is akin to saying law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because violent criminals might use them for evil. Besides, muggers could still wear pantyhose or ski masks even with burkas banned.

I do think muslim women should have to take off their burkas to get a driver's license, though.


Want to wear the burka, stay in burkaland.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Also if we're into telling people what they must wear in public, to get ahead of what "could happen", then why don't we force pregnant women to wear see-through tops so that we can easily verify that their baby bump isn't actually a bomb?

Ah, geez. You must be all in favor of strip-searching 80-y-o White grannies at airports, cause she might be a suicide-hijacker. Right?

Keep out Muslim women (who are the ones who want to wear burkas,) and you've no need to worry about bombs in bellies on White women.
Because what you no-profiling-allowed, pc-addled anti-racists forget is, virtually ALL terrorists are Muslims. White women AREN'T.

BUT if White women are forced to wear burkas because a mass immigration of Muslims forces it on us (and they WILL IF THEY GET THE CHANCE) then you can expect our pleasant, productive, high-trust society to rapidly become a carbon copy of the hellhole countries the Muslims were fleeing when they came here

[Dogman]

Not even this one?

[Ash_Williams]

As if.
If burkas got to be a "normal" sight, any bank that posted such a sign would be slammed
hard with civil-rights-violations charges, just as any establishment today would be if they posted a "No blacks or dogs" sign.

Well now we're getting into needing government oppression to compensate for other forms of government oppression. The bank should be free to put up whatever sign they want and people should be free to wear what they want, then we don't have an issue. You can't just put more rules on top of rules to try to make things better.


In Japan, because they are law-abiding, gun control doesn't do the same damage to innocent people as it does in America. Because America has a substantial portion of black/Mexican gangbangers and just genera thugs, unarmed Whites are sitting ducks.'

My point was Japan has gun control even though guns have never been a problem there, and japs and guns haven't been much of a problem anywhere, and yet they still decided to restrict them out of fear or just dislike with the "just in case" logic. Kinda like how burka's haven't been used by people blowing up shit or robbing banks but we're talking about restricting them "just in case" because theoretically they could.

How about they start doing a cavity search on everyone at the airport, just in case? 'Cause I just won't feel safe on a plane until every woman has been violated by creepy security agents.

If the burkas were a problem then they should have said something when they told these people their immigration was approved. It's not like they wore a baseball cap and low-cut top during their interview and then later switched back to the burka. I don't invite people into my home then an hour into dinner tell them they gotta go topless because I'm now offended by their clothing.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Plus manly-looking figure in a burka strolling into a building with a suitcase

Okay, now I'm convinced. You're just being silly.

The whole POINT to a burka is to hid one's femininity (figure, face) Therefore, there is NO SUCH THING as a non-manly-looking figure in a burka.


And YES, there have been (women) burka-clad suicide-bombers.

Oh, and I'm supposed to believe a suicide bomber is stupid enough to carry in his bomb in a suitcase and not a purse?

[Ash_Williams]

Keep out Muslim women (who are the ones who want to wear burkas,) and you've no need to worry about bombs in bellies on White women.
Because what you no-profiling-allowed, pc-addled anti-racists forget is, virtually ALL terrorists are Muslims. White women AREN'T.

So you believe that a woman willing to blow something up won't be willing to dress normally so she can pull it off? As I understand it, the ones willing to blow up stuff also feel that breaking the rules is perfectly acceptable to attain that goal. You can do all sorts of shit that is normally prohibited in order to put fear into your enemies.

[shakinginmyshoes]

My point was Japan has gun control even though guns have never been a problem there, and japs and guns haven't been much of a problem anywhere, and yet they still decided to restrict them out of fear or just dislike with the "just in case" logic. Kinda like how burka's haven't been used by people blowing up sh*t or robbing banks but we're talking about restricting them "just in case" because theoretically they could.

I think the Japanese are entitled to pass whatever laws they want IN JAPAN.
I think Muslims are entitled to make whatever dress code laws they want IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

But I'm talking about America and Europe:
Keep out Arab-muslims, then burkas as bank-robbing tools is not an issue. It's only an ISSUE
because people like you want them to mass-immigrate to White countries.


How about they start doing a cavity search on everyone at the airport, just in case? 'Cause I just won't feel safe on a plane until every woman has been violated by creepy security agents.
See? There's your pc-addled mistaken assumption. YOU think that "everyone is the same" therefore
White women are a threat for bombing planes. They're not. Muslims are. Keep them OUT of our countries, no burka-bombs.

BUT, if you want to advocate for full body cavity searches for burka wearers, I can get with that.

[shakinginmyshoes]

You can do all sorts of sh*t that is normally prohibited in order to put fear into your enemies.


EXACTAMUNDO! Which is why your assertion that Muslim men won't wear burkas to rob banks (or any other terrorist activity) is laughable.


Keep 'em out, problem prevented.

they should have said something when they told these people their immigration was approved Right. Their immigration should NEVER have been approved. I say it's time to retract the approval. Send 'em back to their home countries.

[Bildo]

I wonder what "Marlene's" last name is, and more importantly why it's being kept from us.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Bildo, expand, please.

[keehah]

‘To me wearing a full veil is an attack on being a woman. As a woman, I felt attacked.’
So she attacked the victimized woman in the veil.

Somewhat like a socialist who hates seeing poverty. So he attacks a homeless person and takes his shopping cart.

[Dogman]

I wonder what "Marlene's" last name is, and more importantly why it's being kept from us.


Probably for a very good reason! To keep people from tracking her down to her house, or calling her at all hours of the day/night. So she would not be harassed. Is my best guess, The law does it all the time to protect people.

[kregener]

http://gaios.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexy-hijab.jpg

[Bildo]

Bildo, expand, please.





I just find it interesting that court documents identify the attacker as "Marlene." Marlene is not a minor, she's 63 years old. So why is her true identity being kept from us?

Also interesting is that more recent articles identify the attacker not as "Marlene," but rather Jeanne Ruby which is evidenced here:

http://sify.com/news/french-burka-rage-teacher-faces-jail-after-ripping-off-muslim-woman-s-face-veil-news-international-kkpm4bjcfic.html
"According to the Daily Mail, 63-year-old Jeanne Ruby appeared before the Paris Correctional Court on Thursday to defend her attack on Shaika al-Suwaidi, 26, who is originally from the United Arab Emirates."

and here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbpaQaZDmAavqXWqYBcrWjreGNbwD9IRKK4G2?docId= D9IRKK4G2
"The defendant, 63-year-old retired English teacher Jeanne Ruby, is accused of biting, slapping and scratching a woman from the United Arab Emirates and her friend in a home decor shop in Paris. "


I'm not drawing conclusions but find it suspicious that her named changed overnight.

[Bildo]

I wonder what "Marlene's" last name is, and more importantly why it's being kept from us.


Probably for a very good reason! To keep people from tracking her down to her house, or calling her at all hours of the day/night. So she would not be harassed. Is my best guess, The law does it all the time to protect people.



Nope, her real name (maybe) is all over the papers today.

[shakinginmyshoes]

What are you thinking, Bildo?

What's your theory why they used "Marlene"?

[nunaem]

Ruby, hmm. What people use precious stones/metals as last names?

[Ash_Williams]

EXACTAMUNDO! Which is why your assertion that Muslim men won't wear burkas to rob banks (or any other terrorist activity) is laughable.

I didn't say they wouldn't wear it because of any inhibitions they had. I said they wouldn't wear it as it's rather impractical, offers little advantages, and they never made a point of hiding their identity anyway.

Yes, they could be sent home. However, the ones that would simply up and leave if asked to aren't the ones blowing shit up. Same logic as thinking gun control will keep criminals from shooting people.

If you've read my posts you'll probably see I'm no fan of muslims by any stretch. One of the things that makes us better than them, in my mind, is that we don't tell people how to live, what not to wear, and we don't have nearly as many laws governing every detail of our lives. That's why the argument "well if you were in their country they'd force you to do such and such" doesn't work for me. Them being wrong too doesn't make it ok. Do we want our countries to be like their countries? When you start telling people they have to show skin, then gov power has gone too far.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Yes, they could be sent home. However, the ones that would simply up and leave if asked to aren't the ones blowing sh*t up

Then the ones who won't simply up and leave need some -- er -- encouragement.

One of the things that makes us better than them, in my mind, is that we don't tell people how to live, what not to wear, and we don't have nearly as many laws governing every detail of our lives. That's why the argument "well if you were in their country they'd force you to do such and such" doesn't work for me. Them being wrong too doesn't make it ok. Do we want our countries to be like their countries?

Okay, you're nearly there. You just have to take that final step.

Our countries are the way they are, with freedoms, because they are populated by US. If they become populated by large numbers of muslims, they will come to have the character of muslim countries, including Sharia law and mandatory burkas for non-Muslim White women. If you allow masses of them in,our countries WILL become like their countries, and all your generosity at giving them our freedoms will come to nought, because you may well lose your (and your White countrymen's) lives. And they will revert to their non-free ways. This is why I don't want them here.

Our freedom to wear what we want, live how we want, can only be maintained if our countries are populated by US. If our countries come to be populated by MUslims, YES, the muslims

MORE

[shakinginmyshoes]

WILL restrict what we wear and how we live.

They WILL because they will have the numbers that they CAN.

And they DON'T think it's wrong, just because you and I do. And if we're outnumbered, our opinions
won't count for a hill of beans.

What you're advocating, let them in because it's wrong to keep them out, because we have "no right to tell them how to live" is unilateral disarmament. They WILL use our freedom (against us) until they get
the numbers to restrict our freedoms.

"When you have power, I say give me my freedom, because that is your way; but when *I* have
power I TAKE your freedom, because that is MY way."

Freedom only works for White people when they are surrounded by White people in White countries. The rest of the world
just doesn't see "right and wrong" the way we do. Bush was wrong. The "whole world' is NOT yearning for freedom. If they were, they'd gain it for themselves in their own countries.

[Book]

Want to wear the burka, stay in burkaland.



http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/images/bush_candle.JPG

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/11-02-04/bush-jew-beenie-wailing-wall-in-israel.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_02/BushES1101_468x351.jpg

:oo-->

We sure don't want anybody wearing that evil Mooslim stuff here in Christian America...lol.

:ROFL:

[Ash_Williams]

Hey I never said let them in. I'm not a fan of letting anyone in and I don't subscribe to the concept of perpetual population growth being necessary.

I only said you don't let them in, then turn around years later and tell them that what they were wearing when you let them in is now unacceptable. There's a certain basic level of integrity that such an action falls far short of. They went through whatever procedure they had to go through, and were approved... you can't blame them now for doing what they were told years ago was fine.

And you don't pass laws about what people wear in an attempt to preserve our freedom. It never leads to freedom. It only leads to more oppressive laws. At some point they won't need to go for sharia law because we'll already have something shittier!

[shakinginmyshoes]

There's a certain basic level of integrity that such an action falls far short of.

While you're busy fussing about your basic integrity level, the Muslims spend their days figuring out how to force-convert YOU, and the rest of the world, to their religion. And if you refuse, chop your head off. Which renders all your concerns about "excessive gov't regulation" laughably, nay, hysterically moot.

Hey, I love freedom too.

But freedom only works in White countries, where the population is overwhelmingly White, and the borders are assiduously guarded.

The non-Whites' (genetically mediated) views are just not compatible.

You want freedom? You want limited government? You want integrity? You want to even LIVE? Then you're going to have to keep the non-Whites (including Muslims) out.

[shakinginmyshoes]

At some point they won't need to go for sharia law

But they WILL go for Sharia law, because it's what they believe (as prompted by their genetics) is RIGHT. And if you disagree, since you don't believe, they conclude you're "evil" and will chop your head off. Problem solved.

[shakinginmyshoes]

Book,

I find seeing our leaders kiss up to Jews just as barf-inducing as you do.

But just because our so-called leaders are sellouts wearing little beanies whiel they kiss the wailing wall and netanyahoo's butt, does not make America a not-Christian nation.

Christianity (in all its permutations) is still the most common religion among our people.
Since I"m on the side of our people, not the Jews, not the blacks, not the reconquista-minded mestizoes, and not the muslims, then I'm on the side of the Christians. (even if I don't share their beliefs.) As an agnostic White woman, I would far, far, far rather live in a country dominated by those folks disparagingly called by our enemies 'bible thumpers" than Muslims -- or Jews.

[Down1]

Precrime is on the scene !
Clamping down on the ever present burka wearing bank robber

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Book, veering sharply to the right, intent upon avoiding Scylla at all costs, falls straight into the gaping mouth of Charybdis on the left. Aryan man: Neither a slave to Jews, or Muslims, be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla_and_Charybdis






Want to wear the burka, stay in burkaland.



http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/images/bush_candle.JPG

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/11-02-04/bush-jew-beenie-wailing-wall-in-israel.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_02/BushES1101_468x351.jpg

:oo-->

We sure don't want anybody wearing that evil Mooslim stuff here in Christian America...lol.

:ROFL:

[illumin19]

The problem some posters here are forgetting is that "sharia" is different in different countries.......

The whole stoning, beheading, burka, is actually not in the Qur'an!. The very "book" sharia is supposed to form the basis of......

The other basis is "traditions"/sayings of Rasul Allah (alayhi salam)....but what are the traditions they speak of.....Muslims don't all agree on one thing but the Qur'an and it's authenticity. They don't agree on the "sayings"/traditions....hence the differences.

So why don't they start there (Qur'an)? They say they do but in the world what we here of oppression, stoning, decapitating, etc... is not in the Qur'an!

I'm no expert by any means, i have never been to a predominantly muslim country.....but the "practice" of Muslims who claim they practice Islam and do it with oppression, stoning, honor killings etc. no way dampers Islam in my sight because I know that's not what Islam is.
Same thing with presidents or leaders claiming to be christian invade a whole nation on a lie, call it a "crusade" would no way influence me on Christianity. That's because, Jesus (alayhi salam) would not order his followers (even if they were called christians) to do such a thing.
Ignorance of the solid principals of any practice is the real enemy......hence the generalizations constantly being stamped onto a "discipline" by on-lookers because of the "flaws" in human nature that cannot live out the so easily applied principles on paper but yet almost impossible to divert principles in "real life".

[shakinginmyshoes]

.....but the "practice" of Muslims who claim they practice Islam and do it with oppression, stoning, honor killings etc. no way dampers Islam in my sight because I know that's not what Islam is.


This is the "no True Scotsman" argument.

"All True Scotsmen love the bagpipes. What's that you say? You know a Scotsman who hates the bagpipes? Why, then, he's not a True Scotsman."

Muslims who kill for the stated reason that they are carrying out the Jihad the Quran tells them to are the model for the rest of us of what it's going to mean TO US, from a practical standpoint, if a bunch of self-identified Muslims move into our countries.

*I* see no reason to take the chance, at all, about what "True Islam" is or isn't. Let them stay in their countries and stay OUT of mine, and then they can argue amongst themselves all day long about what Islam is or isn't. None of my business.
But WHY should *I* take your word for it that murderous behavior / stonings / beheadings / rape of White Christian women is "not True Islam," and be happy to see them let in? Why should I even bother to take the risk? What's in it for ME and MY KIDS? Hm?

[shakinginmyshoes]

The Burka Witch Trials. To discriminate against Muslim women wearing these, would be the same as discriminating against Pentecostal women for wearing 5ft long hair and ankle skirts. Nobody bitches about that though.

Horsesh--.
White Pentecostal women are our people. Muslim women are NOT. They don't belong here. Since if they weren't here we wouldn't be having this debate, then the obvious solution is, repeal the 1965 mass-immigration act and deport ALL post 1965 immigrants. (including the muslims and the mestizoes from Mexico.)

The 1965 immigration act was rammed through by Jews with Ted Kennedy's ostensible endorsement, (probably he was blackmailed because of Chappaquiddick) based on a straight-up lie to the American people (that it wouldn't change the racial makeup of America) and DESPITE OVERWHELMING (more than 70% against) disfavor by the American people. We never voted for this, it was treason to do it to us, and it's time for Stand Up Leaders who will make it right for us (by deporting them).

(Plus, it's disingenous to pretend that Pentecostals in denim skirts and 5-ft hair are the same as Muslims, because burkas cover the entire head, body and face so the identity of the burka-wearer is impossible to ascertain.)

And, edgecrusher, it's fair to assume, by the Hebrew letters, you're Jewish? The Jew siding with the Muslim against the Christian, just as in the Jewish Golden Age in Spain and at the Gates of Vienna?

[Book]

The 1965 immigration act was rammed through by Jews with Ted Kennedy's ostensible endorsement, (probably he was blackmailed because of Chappaquiddick) based on a straight-up lie to the American people (that it wouldn't change the racial makeup of America) and DESPITE OVERWHELMING (more than 70% against) disfavor by the American people.



"by Jews"

[illumin19]

*I* see no reason to take the chance, at all, about what "True Islam" is or isn't. Let them stay in their countries and stay OUT of mine, and then they can argue amongst themselves all day long about what Islam is or isn't. None of my business.
But WHY should *I* take your word for it that murderous behavior / stonings / beheadings / rape of White Christian women is "not True Islam," and be happy to see them let in? Why should I even bother to take the risk? What's in it for ME and MY KIDS? Hm?

So where is, YOUR country exactly?

So white christian women have been raped by brown muslim men before, fine, I'm not contesting that.....brown muslim men/women and their families are currently getting cancer(du), blown to pieces, raped etc. by nations predominantly labeled/ran by "white christians" right now, can I hear you say some of the same things about these people/nations that you label brown muslims?

I guess white christians are not so different from these evil brown muslims after all.....

[shakinginmyshoes]

So, what's your point?

I'm ALL for America getting the he!! out of Arabia.