Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their country, their rules

The US needs to stop sticking its damn nose into other people's business.

We claim we respect differences. Well then, respect their right to protect their cultural beliefs.

Has the US gov't stuck its nose in France's business regarding this issue? People are just expressing opinion here. Last I checked, we can do this still in this country.

Maybe the French gov't should butt out of what people wear at the beach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their country, their rules

The US needs to stop sticking its damn nose into other people's business.

We claim we respect differences. Well then, respect their right to protect their cultural beliefs.

Has the US gov't stuck its nose in France's business regarding this issue? People are just expressing opinion here. Last I checked, we can do this still in this country.

Maybe the French gov't should butt out of what people wear at the beach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their country, their rules

The US needs to stop sticking its damn nose into other people's business.

We claim we respect differences. Well then, respect their right to protect their cultural beliefs.

Has the US gov't stuck its nose in France's business regarding this issue? People are just expressing opinion here. Last I checked, we can do this still in this country.

Maybe the French gov't should butt out of what people wear at the beach.

Anonymous wrote:Their country, their rules

The US needs to stop sticking its damn nose into other people's business.

We claim we respect differences. Well then, respect their right to protect their cultural beliefs.

Anonymous wrote: By the way, A burkini is basically a wetsuit with a hood. It cannot be used to carry a bomb vest. The debate about banning the burkini is not about "security" or preventing suicide bombers, but about "secularism and the values of the republic" -- or more precisely, using those concepts to discriminate againts French citizens of a certain faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it matter that there is a double standard? Should the western world follow what the Muslim world does where it pertains to forcing women to wear, nor not wear certain garments?


No, we shouldn't. I for one do not like walking out of a Panera bread in Springfield with my young daughters and having a man "shoo" us away from the outside tables because his harm of burkas are eating outside with him and his other friends. Scared the crap out of my daughter and her friends, this is not the Middle East and I could care less about their repressive culture.

similar situation happened to me at a different place. I stared him down, though. I will not be intimidated into changing anything I do in my day to day life. This is my worry. They leave oppressive countries and bring their crap here. No thank you.

The Starbucks in the Burlington Coat Factory shopping center in Bailey's Crossroads has been taken over by Middle Eastern men who monopolize the tables both inside and outside. It is very uncomfortable even walking by them because of their nasty comments.

I was just going to post about that!

I live across town and happened to be in the area shopping. I walked over to that starbucks and their were lines of men sitting outside smoking. They all stopped talking and just stared or glared at me in silence. I walked into starbucks to order and the same thing happened. It was the creepiest, most uncomfortable and weirdest thing that has ever happened to me.

I kept thinking in my head "wtf was going on?!?" It felt like taking the wrong turn down a dark alley at night and walking into a bunch of gang bangers or meth heads in the middle of a drug deal.

It was a very negative experience. I was in shorts and a T and after going through that I can sympathize with why those women feel tye need to cover themselves head to toe. What a horrible life for these women to live if that is how the men in their world react to women.

I really feel for those women wrapped up head to toe in burkas. It might be a choice to dress like that but it is clearly not a free choice.

Harris Teeter Starbucks in Tysons is taken over nightly by women wearing hijabs and their many young children. No men in sight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And oh yeah your stupid numbering on each of your posts isnannoying and makes you look like a condescending pig who know it all which you obviously do not.

1. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
2. Go to 1.

1. You are a stupid misinformed idiot trying to sound as if you know it all when you do not. Your parents would be so embarassed for you.

2. See number 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And oh yeah your stupid numbering on each of your posts isnannoying and makes you look like a condescending pig who know it all which you obviously do not.

1. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
2. Go to 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

This. Agree one trillion percent.

Still doesn't make it right just because one is less worse than the other.

Agree. But note that multiple PPs were saying that both were equally bad. They're not equally bad.

Anonymous wrote:And oh yeah your stupid numbering on each of your posts isnannoying and makes you look like a condescending pig who know it all which you obviously do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard partying convert who donned hijab and burka to kill all in a french building

http://nypost.com/2015/11/20/skanky-suicide-bomber-used-to-be-a-selfie-taking-party-animal/

You are a dummy, aren't you? She wasn't wearing a burka when she reportedly blew herself up. (By the way, it was later reported that someone else, a guy, was the person who detonated the bomb. Look it up). By the way, what she is wearing in the photo is not a burka. Finally, how is the the fact that she wore a veil (not a burka, not a burkini) in some random picture related to the subject of this thread?

Oh that is right. A criminal wore a hijab. It follows that all people wearing a hijab are criminals.

So what was she wearing and where is your evidence? Whatever the wear she was covering up and was no longer wearing clubwear. Even the relative in the article says she now wore traditional clothing. Unless you are the relative how would you know? The point is the french banned headscarves at one point and will probably do it again PC be damned.

She is not the person who activated the vest. It was a guy. Where is *your* evidence supporting your initial statement that "she donned hijab and burka to kill in a building" which is your failed attempt to link the wearing of a burkini at a beach and this incident. If she had been wearing a fricking burka inside a building, it would have been reported. And a burka is used outside the house. But all these issues are irrelevant.

By the way, France has not banned headscarves. Please try to have a minimum of knowledge before posting.

You obviously want to conflate the use of a burkini in a beach with the fact that a criminal wore a hijab and burka. If you think the second somewhat justifies the first you need to have you head examined -- not for the presence of bigotry, which you obviously have, but for the absence of logic.

Her relative said in articles she started to wear traditional clothing before the attack. Her intent was to kill people so what does it matter who committed suicide with her? France did ban headscarves in the past look it up. Try to have some minimal knowledge about what you are posting dummy. I am not conflating. The french are not bigoted but taking care of their people and being cautious of further attacks.

1. This criminal became radicalized and began to use traditional clothing, including a hijab (which many law-abiding perfectly normal French women and American women of the Muslim faith use), and a burka. According to your twisted logic, the fact that she used traditional clothing at some point is somehow related to the debate about the use of a head cover and long sleeves in the beach.
2. The outdated and factually incorrect article you quoted does not include the words hijab or burka, yet you misleadingly stated that she donned a hijab and burka at the same time she tried to lure the police into the building, in your pathetic attempt to somehow argue that this particular incident justifies a burkini ban.
3. The French have not banned the use of headscarves. There was a law in 2010 banning the use of the burka in public, and a law limiting the use of headscarves in schools, not in public. You obviously don't know that a headscarve is different from a burka, and a burka is different from a burkini, the latter being created in Australia by a Muslim designer about 10 years ago.
4. You are an idiot and don't realize it.

What the hell are you talking about? The article about the skanky muslim is outdated no duh because it did not happen recently. My god you are so stupid. Educate yourself better please. Fucking idiot.

This principle is supposed to keep religion out of public life, and has been the basis of previous French bans: on the headscarf (and other “conspicuous” religious symbols, including the Jewish kippah and oversized crucifixes) in state schools (in 2004), and the face-covering niqab in all public places (in 2010). The other principle is women’s equality. It may appear bizarre, or frivolous, to argue that women should bare more flesh. But many on the French left in particular regard the need to protect women from a male-imposed doctrine as being at stake—and are willing to put it even before liberty, another founding value of republican France. The logic of the burkini, says Laurence Rossignol, the Socialist women’s minister, is to “hide women’s bodies in order better to control them”.
Advertisement

Over the years, such efforts have long been met with dismay, if not derision, outside France. When the French began to debate a ban on the burqa in 2009, for instance, Barack Obama declared in Cairo that Western countries should avoid “dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear” under “the pretence of liberalism”. Some civil-liberties groups within France have tried—but so far failed—to get the burkini ban overturned in the courts. Yet French governments bristle at the notion that their various attempts to defend laïcité amount to intolerance or an infringement of the freedom of expression. They may note that in 2014 the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s burqa ban. What outsiders fail to understand, the French argue, is that such body wear is not just a casual choice but part of an attempt by political Islamism to win recruits and test the resilience of the French republic. Mr Valls dismisses as naive those who see it as being no different than a wetsuit. The burkini, he says, is part of a “political project”, and complacency plays into the hands of Islamists.
The difficulty is that, after a series of deadly terrorist attacks over the past 18 months, France is in a state of heightened tension.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/08/economist-explains-19

1. The article originally posted was factually incorrect. It wasn't her who activated the bomb. The original poster tried to justify the burkini ban arguing that there were previous incidents of radicalized women using traditional clothing to do suicide bombings. There has been exactly zero such cases. This factually incorrect article was soon correct at that time, thus becoming outdated *at that time already*. Of course, whether she activated the vest is irrelevant -- except that you tried to use that argument when attempting to justify a burkini ban.

2. You need to learn how to copy and paste ( "Advertisement"). More importantly, the two paragraphs you copied and pasted have nothing to do with your initial argument "burkini ban is needed because I misread an inaccurate article that said that a criminal once wore a hijab, which shows in my little head that burkini ban will solve the risk of female suicide bombers""

3. Using an expletive doesn't make your argument stronger.

4. You are still an idiot.