Posted on 11/15/2015 5:35:57 PM PST by markomalley
A mother-of-four was abused while she shopped in Tesco because she was wearing a niqab.
Rahela Chowdhury, 32, from Burnley, was in her local store with all four children when the man approached her and shouted 'why can't I see your face?'
She was left frozen to the spot and has been so scared she has hardly left the house since the incident on October 3.
Her youngest child, who is only four, also started crying uncontrollably.
Her abuser, John McDougall, 50, from Earby in Lancashire, has now been ordered to pay victim compensation and carry out 200 hours community service.
Recalling the terrifying ordeal, Mrs Chowdhury said: 'He started abusing me, asking me why I was wearing the full veil.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
You're free to disagree with me.
If the mohammedans get their way, you WON'T be free to disagree with them.
And hijab is a uniform: the uniform of mohammedanism.
Your Roman Catholic nuns are also in uniform (and I tip my hat to them, they're good people): the uniform of their particular "order".
A uniform is distinctive garb which signifies membership in a particular group.
A hijab may be a uniform of mohammadism, but not exclusively. It is also worn by some Kurds who are mohammadans but militantly anti-ISIS --- get that, they defend Assyrian Christians and Yazidis, and shoot ISIS guys dead (which I warmly appreciate); and it's worn by some Yazidis, who are non-Muslim and ALSO anti-ISIS.
We ought to fight ISIS with righteous warfare, not with supermarket harassment. Can't we agree on that?
We're at war with mohammedanism itself.
I understand that there is division within mohammedanism. In the early 1940s there was division within socialist totalitarianism. We allied, briefly, with the greater monster Stalin against the lesser monster Hitler. By doing so, we defeated Hitler ... then proceeded to fight a protracted, "cold" war with Stalin and his successors. Most of that time, we tried very hard to exclude communist agitators and subversive agents from our country. Such exclusion was simple self defense.
You see an innocent mother. I see a subversive agent of an evil and destructive ideology.
We ought to fight ISIS with righteous warfare, not with supermarket harassment. Can't we agree on that?
Do you know what a "lie of omission" is? Because that's what you're doing. And the subject isn't tedious - it's literally an emergency.
But thanks for sharing. What you refuse to say speaks volumes about why America is in such serious danger. I wonder, if an ISIS nuke goes off in a cargo ship in a US port, would it be rude to mention that to a burka-clad mommy off shopping with her little darlings? Wouldn't want to hurt her feelings as vaporized American body parts fly past, now would we? After all, she's innocent.
We're at war with the entire mohammedan political/social/religious ideology. Or we should be. Because it is most certainly at war with us. The followers of mohammed mean to destroy us. There are no "front lines" ... the war is right here in our own cities. There is no distinction between "combatants" and "innocent civilians". The mohammedans will be as happy to kill you (yes, you personally) as to kill any Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, contractor, or intelligence agent. This is a war of civilizations that makes the so-called "total war" of the bloody XX Century look limited and discretionary.
Again, you seem to see an innocent woman buying milk for her babies.
I see a subversive agent of an enemy motivated by an evil ideology.
You see a woman wearing her traditional religious garb.
I see echoes of Kruschev banging on the table and saying "We will bury you". I didn't doubt Kruschev's sincerity or his intentions. I don't doubt the mohammedans sincerity or intentions either.
If all Islam's evil were incorporated into one dragon, and we could strike off the dragon's head with one roar of a chain-saw, this would be a "right and just, proper and helpful" thing any person of good will could do. My own first-born son, now in USMC jet fighter training, will someday hopefully bomb their damned rat-holes with my fervent blessing, blood and fire crimsoning the sky.
That isn't the same as yelling at a blameless woman in the Produce Aisle.
And for what purpose? So she'll say, "Oh, excuse me, sir, and please tell me more about your Christianity, I'm simply fascinated"? So she'll say, "This sucks, by Allah, I'm going back to Syria"? Fat chance. For all we know her original name was Sally Ann, born in Wimbledon to Nigel and Sylvia Spencer.
I am ashamed for this man, as I would be for any shouting idiot. No man in my family and friends would have pulled such a stupid stunt.
If all Islam's evil were incorporated into one dragon, and we could strike off the dragon's head with one roar of a chain-saw, this would be a "right and just, proper and helpful" thing any person of good will could do. My own first-born son, now in USMC jet fighter training, will someday hopefully bomb their damned rat-holes with my fervent blessing, blood and fire crimsoning the sky.
That isn't the same as yelling at a blameless woman in the Produce Aisle.
And for what purpose? So she'll say, "Oh, excuse me, sir, and please tell me more about your Christianity, I'm simply fascinated"? So she'll say, "This sucks, by Allah, I'm going back to Syria"? Fat chance. For all we know her original name was Sally Ann, born in Wimbledon to Nigel and Sylvia Spencer.
I am ashamed for this man, as I would be for any shouting idiot. No man in my family and friends would have pulled such a stupid stunt.
The just man, justices.
But the farmer arms, too.
See tagline
But the farmer arms, too.
See tagline
So much for multitasking, then. Mothers are merely saints because of the fact they are mothers. Even while they support jihad.
Nope.
Justice says nope.
Justice says those bloody lumps of flesh leftover in Paris were mothers, and had mothers, too. Justice says the mothers of the Paris murderers, who supported and enabled their children in becoming killers, are themselves killers. If mothers want to be a part of a murderous organization, then they answer for that. Motherhood is not some immaculate soul cleanser, and no real mother would claim that. Even animals breed. Motherhood is morality - so by definition, there are no jihad mothers. There are jihad murder breeders, but that's it.
I hope you never serve in any capacity with the criminal justice system, such as juryman, since the concepts of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "procedural due process" or even "justice" seem to be lost on you. We have no indication that this Tesco shopper in particular supports jihad.
Every other part of you argument stems from that assumption, for which you can offer no evidence except that she wears a hijab.
You yourself can offer no evidence that YOU even care whether she is a pro-jihad ISIS supporter, an anti-ISIS Kurdish partisan, or even a member of some some face-veiling syncretistic sect like the Alawites, Sufis or Yazidis.
So your whole argument is based on a firm foundation of ---- absolutely nothing.
I know futile argumentation when I see it. We're through.
Your determined denial of the true, murderous teachings of Islam, accepted by all Muslims, especially in the face of the Paris massacre, is revolting. When ISIS hits here, it will reach criminality. Maybe you can get a PR job with Merkel, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe Jarret is hiring. Lots of denial based jobs are available these days.
Your continual distortion of my words and intentions is revolting. I have never denied that the teachings if Islam are murderous.
There are certainly Muslims who do not accept these teachings, and I know that first-hand and for a fact. Maybe they are "bad" Muslims (by the standards of their perverse teachers and leaders), maybe they are lukewarm, inconsistent, backslidden, confused, or maybe they just obdurately refuse to "live down to" a murderous "ideal." I see you are unable to acknowledge that fact: that's your key error here, Talisker.
It is contemptible that you would place me with Merkel, the MB, and Jarret. I guess when you exhaust your evidence and run out of argument, you think you can keep things rolling with insult.
Like I said, we're through here.
Actually, I speak for the thousands of murdered victims of Muslim terrorists who never saw it coming, because they thought like you. I speak, because their blood cannot speak, and their cries have died out. If you want to call that absolutely nothing, that's a judgement that speaks more of you than me.
Is it possible you think this is some sort of word game? That parsing nits will save lives? Have you forgotten that we are talking about war, and not a jury trial?
Or do you agree with Hillary, that Islam us not the enemy, even though it teaches death to infidels?
Bah. Your position is indefensible.
Laughing my ass off here!
Victim? Compensation?
I know women wearing burkas and scarves can see the scorn on my face when ever I look, or I should say, sneer at them!
Have you forgotten that we're talking about yelling at a shopper in a grocery store, not bombing ISIS positions in Syria?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.