Replies

As to their attire, I got it from the article as posted in #347. Since the article was supportive of the Muslim swim, I have no reason to doubt the reporting.

Pardon me for resorting to common sense to interpret the intent of masking the windows on the indoor pool with brown paper. By masking the windows, the women could then relax from the requirement to wear the burkas required to preserve public modesty dictates. Post #388 clearly supports that conclusion:

...in private, these women whip off their coverings and they are beautifully dressed and made up. Obviously, they do seek to be attractive, just not publicly

So I stand by my assertion - the women that swam in the pool behind the masked windows didn't have to wear the multiple layers of clothing to swim. Why mask the windows if they were going to wear burkas? As I said before. I'm sure they wore modest swimming attire though - and who cares.

"Why mask the windows if they were going to wear burkas?"

Your "common sense" spin does not trump the plain statement in the article that some women continue to wear flowing garments. Your inference is clearly wrong and the result of your Western sensibility.

Your lack an understanding of the level of the extremism of some Muslims on this issue. I hoped my post on letting school children die in a fire would enlighten you, but I see you still can not grasp how insane this can be.

Many are so extreme and their body shame so profound that they would never reveal their body in public, even a sexually seggregated public.

That's 'ok' I'm sure you don't understand Jihadists either.

I am curious why the people on this thread trying to accomodate Muslims aren't more concerned about the fact that the London Bombing mastermind might have been involved in setting up a terror cell in Seattle. Are you sure accomodation is the right approach.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/20/terror.suspect/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002133716_majid29m.html