Hayat Boumedienne - Another Reason to Ban Niqabs

[protectionist]

The 4th of the Paris terrorists, Hayat Boumedienne, is at large, and considered armed and dangerous. What makes this even more problematic is that Boumedienne is known to wear niqabs (which cover every bit of the body except the eyes. On the MSNBC show, Politics Nation, photos of Boumedienne with Amedy Coulibaly (one of the terrorists who was killed) show her wearing a black niqab and firing a large pistol.

With a niqab, Boumedienne could both hide her identity and conceal a weapon as large as a fully automatic assault rifle. This shouldn't be a problem in France, where Muslim face coverings are banned, but if Boumedienne should manage to leave the country, other countries then face a situation of having to ban niqabs or allow Boumedienne to go undetected.

There may need to be a worldwide ban on niqabs and all face coverings, at least until Boumedienne is caught. This reveals a reason why face coverings ought to be banned completely, everywhere, always.

 

[Porker]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

 

[protectionist]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

???? Shoot WHO ?

 

[Porker]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

???? Shoot WHO ?

Is it that difficult for you to figure that out all by yourself?

 

[protectionist]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

???? Shoot WHO ?

Is it that difficult for you to figure that out all by yourself?

If it wasn't, I wouldn't have had to ask, now would I ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Another absurd thing about this religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"There may need to be a worldwide ban on niqabs and all face coverings, at least until Boumedienne is caught. This reveals a reason why face coverings ought to be banned completely, everywhere, always."

In the United States this would be un-Constitutional, and appropriately so.

That the OP and many others on the right exhibit their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and it's case law, along with the rule of law, comes as no surprise, of course, as many conservatives fear change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

And here we see an example of the contempt for due process common to many on the right.

It's telling how many conservatives are willing to surrender their civil liberties for the false perception of security.

 

[protectionist]

"There may need to be a worldwide ban on niqabs and all face coverings, at least until Boumedienne is caught. This reveals a reason why face coverings ought to be banned completely, everywhere, always."

In the United States this would be un-Constitutional, and appropriately so.

That the OP and many others on the right exhibit their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and it's case law, along with the rule of law, comes as no surprise, of course, as many conservatives fear change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

It comes as no surprise to me that you make this idiotic post you just did.

1. There is nothing unconstitutional about banning face coverings.

2. Bans on face coverings already exist in Florida and most states in America. In Florida, even hoods are banned. (Florida Statute Title XLVI > Chapter 876 > Section 12)
Chapter 876 Section 12 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

3. Not only is it not unconstitutional to ban niqabs, it IS UNCONSTIUTIONAL to permit Islam to exist, period, and has been for 226 years.
Not only should niqabs be banned, but so should mosques and Korans, and anything Islamic. And in fact, they already are, and this is just another example of American laws not being enforced. The fact is, Islam is 100% unconstitutional and illegal, and has been for 226 years, since the Constitution banned it (and any other supremacist ideology) in Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).
All mosques currently in existence should be closed down, and converted to other uses. All footwashing basins, Korans, prayer rooms, prayer rugs, etc. should be eliminated. This is as it should have been all along, since the 18th century.
A side benefit of this would be that droves of Muslims would leave the US, some jihadists among them, and terrorist planning in mosques would cease. Yes, they might just go to conferring in their own homes, but then would have a lot smaller audience, and there also is the point of why are we helping these lunatics plan to conspire against us ? (in opposition to the ground rules the founding fathers put in place for our protection)

PS- Islam is also illegal by virtue of US codes 2384 & 2385 (Seditious Conspiracy & Overthrow of Government)

 

[protectionist]

"There may need to be a worldwide ban on niqabs and all face coverings, at least until Boumedienne is caught. This reveals a reason why face coverings ought to be banned completely, everywhere, always."

In the United States this would be un-Constitutional, and appropriately so.

That the OP and many others on the right exhibit their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and it's case law, along with the rule of law, comes as no surprise, of course, as many conservatives fear change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

It comes as no surprise to me that you make this idiotic post you just did.

1. There is nothing unconstitutional about banning face coverings.

2. Bans on face coverings already exist in Florida and most states in America. In Florida, even hoods are banned. (Florida Statute Title XLVI > Chapter 876 > Section 12)
Chapter 876 Section 12 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

3. Not only is it not unconstitutional to ban niqabs, it IS UNCONSTIUTIONAL to permit Islam to exist, period, and has been for 226 years.
Not only should niqabs be banned, but so should mosques and Korans, and anything Islamic. And in fact, they already are, and this is just another example of American laws not being enforced. The fact is, Islam is 100% unconstitutional and illegal, and has been for 226 years, since the Constitution banned it (and any other supremacist ideology) in Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).
All mosques currently in existence should be closed down, and converted to other uses. All footwashing basins, Korans, prayer rooms, prayer rugs, etc. should be eliminated. This is as it should have been all along, since the 18th century.
A side benefit of this would be that droves of Muslims would leave the US, some jihadists among them, and terrorist planning in mosques would cease. Yes, they might just go to conferring in their own homes, but then would have a lot smaller audience, and there also is the point of why are we helping these lunatics plan to conspire against us ? (in opposition to the ground rules the founding fathers put in place for our protection)

PS- Islam is also illegal by virtue of US codes 2384 & 2385 (Seditious Conspiracy & Overthrow of Government)

PPS- what looney liberals fear is not getting enough VOTES, and thereby succumb to supporting ANY minority group that comes along, even if they are unconstitutional, illegal, and criminal in various serious ways, so as to allow them to threaten the American people by becoming Muslim ass-kissers. And after the last election, when America showed them how out of touch they are with National Security, they are even more fanatic about pathetically scrounging up VOTES, from ANYONE, all the more.

 

[protectionist]

Or easier yet...just shoot the bastards on sight.

And here we see an example of the contempt for due process common to many on the right.

It's telling how many conservatives are willing to surrender their civil liberties for the false perception of security.

We are at WAR with Islam. Those who fight us and try to kill us should be shot on sight, like any enemy combatant. Please don't give me the crap about fighting war without a declaration of war being unconstitutional, if you are complacent with Obama declaring amnesty for illegal aliens against the constitution, which relegates that job to Congress. Are you willing to surrender your civil liberties to be protected from the long list of harms of immigration, for VOTES ?

 

[AceRothstein]

Supposedly she left France for Syria a month ago. She's probably a bad person but not sure how she got pulled into this if she is in another country.

 

[protectionist]

Supposedly she left France for Syria a month ago. She's probably a bad person but not sure how she got pulled into this if she is in another country.

By false reporting to cover for the failure of the police to nab her. If she wasn't there at the attack on Thursday, why did CNN et al report that she was ?

 

[AceRothstein]

Supposedly she left France for Syria a month ago. She's probably a bad person but not sure how she got pulled into this if she is in another country.

By false reporting to cover for the failure of the police to nab her. If she wasn't there at the attack on Thursday, why did CNN et al report that she was ?

Because the media gets a lot wrong in their rush to get information out. We'll hear soon enough from the hostages.