YEAH RIGHT!! Hahahaha Should I edit it? Would that convince you? Find an Arabic source. It's an Arabic word and it originates from Arabia. Just admit you're wrong. You won't win this one. Find one Arabic source. Any reliable Arabic source. If wiki is convincing to you, I can edit it right now. I know you won't, so just answer this for us. Are you condoning banning the entire thing then (the body cover)? You realize that's NOT banned in France right? Look back at the story of that french animal who tore the "burqa" off. What did she tear off? If you don't ban the body cover, how do you stop the bombs?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Burka The other, which is also called a full burqa or an Afghan burqa and occasionally called a chador (چادر), is a garment which covers the entire body and face. The eyes are covered with a 'net curtain' allowing the woman to see but preventing other people from seeing her eyes. -------------------- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ombers-who-terrorise-afghanistan-1755887.html The Burqa-clad bombers who terrorise Afghanistan Taliban borrow tactic from Iraqi militant handbook as Afghan violence shows no sign of slowing, in spite of US-led surge Male suicide bombers disguised in womens' burqas stormed government buildings and security headquarters in co-ordinated attacks which killed a dozen people and injured 22 others in eastern Afghanistan yesterday. Hamid Karzai's government described the "commando-style" raids as a new tactic being employed by the Taliban in what has been one of the most violent months in the country's war. Bombers wearing burqas, male and female, have struck on a number of occasions in Iraq. The modus operandi is, however, new to Afghanistan where, due to religious sensibilities, women in traditional dresses face less risk of being searched than in Iraq. Fierce firefights broke out in the towns of Gardez and Jalalabad after about 15 bombers produced Kalashnikov assault rifles from under their long robes and opened fire. Several of the insurgents who managed to get inside the buildings then detonated their explosive vests, causing carnage. Azizuddin Wardak, the provincial police chief said that all the bombers had entered Gardez town centre wearing all-enveloping burqas. "This is a new type of tactic. They wanted to kill innocent people as well as government officials," he said. (...) An Afghan soldier stands guard near a discarded burqa, used by a Taliban suicide bomber to attack government buildings in Gardez ------------ Sure looks a bit big to only cover the face . But Mathloon, don't let facts get into the way of your little rants.
Who cares about your Arabic dictionary. http://www.google.com/images?q=afgh...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1359&bih=648 Google Translation of your link: ----------- Thank you Mathloon, for once again self-owning yourself. Your own link in Arabic disproves your claim that a burqa always only covers the face. Thanks for playing. Not that it matters: Either way, whether it "only" covers the face, or also the neck, or the whole body - it is all a way to degrade women to objects that must be covered and is an expression of a back-asswards repressed view of morals and sexuality. That you so vehemently try to defend it just shows that you have not liberated yourself at all from the back-asswards thinking, which makes it scarier to think of what you of all people would be doing as a government regulator. Hopefully you never actually get to regulate anything more meaningful than trash collection.
Logic cares. Where do you find the definition of a German word? http://www.google.ae/images?um=1&hl...=german+symbol&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= One. Just one.
And your initial link says "usually" which is false, regardless of opinion, but still shows that covering the body is not a defining characteristic. One. Arabic. Dictionary. Let me paint a picture of what everyone is seeing: ATW knows that the correct place to define an Arabic word is an Arabic dictionary but is actually in a discussion where he insists that Wiki and google images defines the word. This, incidentally, fits his agenda. Then he tries to change the subject back to "Burqas" are degrading, knowing full well that he's discussing whether it can be used to conceal a weapon. Just one. Please ATW. I will admit I am wrong, I promise, if you show me one reliable Arabic source. Isn't that worth it for you? I'll put it in my sig.
Do you want me to link you to a Western source that lists out the central dictionaries? The equivalent of the Oxfords and the Websters? I haven't even looked them up. WALLAAHI hahaha. Should I give you the list and you can decide if it's acceptable to you?
What difference does it make? The burqa (and your way of thinking) is back-asswards. That you care so much about its definition in Arabic rather than about how it degrades women to objects and represents a repressed and stupid pseudo-morality is rather interesting. It's like you are either totally missing the point or intentionally opening an irrelevant side discussion. As far as I know, Afghans do not speak Arabic, and the Afghan burqa is worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where these suicide bombings happen, and nowadays by some poor mobile jail for women wearers also in some other countries. That the Arabic version of "burqa" might look slightly different and cover a bit less of the body - who the hell cares. It does not make a difference to the fact that either version is stupid.
Hahahaha thanks dude. :grin: You made my day with this! What you've stated here is odd. My position on those things has been made clear multiple times in this thread and you know because it was in response to you usually. Either your mind has selectively blocked it out or your attempt at trying to change the subject to "Mathloom doesn't care about suicide bombs" is like a tub of weak-sauce. It also doesn't change the fundamental fact that body covering is NOT banned in France and hence unrelated to this thread. Face covering is NOT a way to hide weapons, so it is unrelated to this topic of conversation. I am NOT a supporter of burqas, so your last comment is baffling and frankly also unrelated to the point. Thanks for playing.
Then why do you keep trying to derail this thread into a discussion of face-covering? As has been extensively proven, Afghan burqas cover more than just the face. Plenty of pictures and links have been provided, but you just choose to ignore the facts and to keep spouting your nonsense. Nothing new there. Oh, and if you want more image proof IN ARABIC...here you go. http://www.google.com/images?um=1&h...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1359&bih=617
Right, that is why you call someone who tore a burqa away (which I believe should not be done by private citizens) an "animal". Shows where you stand. You are obviously angrier at someone who removes a burqa than at those who force their women to wear them. You are two-faced, and you are a liar. There is plenty of proof for that in this forum.
