Greta Van Susteren to Laura Bush’s critics: Get a life!
posted at 2:41 pm on October 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This makes four separate posts we’ll have wrung from that dopey photo op. Greta’s contribution to the debate is noteworthy for two reasons. One, it confirms my suspicion from our first post that the Saudis surprised Laura Bush with the scarf as a gift, thus pressuring her to put it on out of common courtesy. And two, between the frequent ellipses, multiple question marks, erratic capitalization, and “get a life” colloquialisms, either Greta’s dictating her posts to an intern or she has fully internalized chatroom style.
I was there. Here are the facts…
at the end, the women presented her with a gift – a head scarf with pink ribbon on it (breast cancer pink ribbon)…Mrs. Bush, like any good guest, put the gift (the head scarf with the breast cancer pink ribbon) on her head….it was on her head about 2 minutes at most because we then all had to leave for Mrs. Bush next scheduled event….we got up and left….I would have been critical of her if she had not been a good guest and donned the scarf….it would have been incredibly rude to these womren….
so critics? get a life! (or here is another idea: get the facts right!)…
One more thing…for all those who were critical of Speaker Pelosi for wearing a head scarf ..now might be a good time to email her website and apologize for being petty……and then let’s move on?????
Exit question: Would Ayaan have put the scarf on in the same circumstances?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Greta, stick to what you do best.
Errr…. whatever that is.
wccawa on October 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I remember clips of nancy in different places with different headscarfs. Why do liberals always justify thier deeds by saying everyone does it?
peacenprosperity on October 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Greta is a far left loon and rabid Hillary supporter. This was an opportunity for Greta to to give a gift to leftists who wish to downplay the Islamist threat, and a backhanded way to rehabilitate Pelosi after her own faux-pas. Greta has a life, and it’s a Democrat one.
Greta sails off to Aruba, MM takes her place at 10!
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM
The criticism of Speaker Pelosi only INCLUDED the head scarf. The fact that she was speaking on behalf of the USA to a known terrorist supporting country was the main problem. She undermined the President’s national policy. At one period of time that would be considered TREASON.
What’s worse, Assad used that as an opportunity to use his influence to continue his reign of terror.
Apologize to Pelosi for being treasonous? Um no?
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM
WWAD: What Would Ayaan Do?
I think we need to make it a bracelet and send one to all American female lawmakers, celebrities, and public figures who might find themselves in Mrs. Bush’s situation.
Michelle on October 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM
No, but Ayaan couldn’t possibly be in that situation. Not now anyway, but if she was in that situation, I’m seeing Zippo lighter and charred hijab.
Maybe no rich white coeds have gone missing this week?
Bad Candy on October 29, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Nope. Nor is it relevant.
Spirit of 1776 on October 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Why not?
Allahpundit on October 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM
That writing style … is reminiscent … of Larry King …
Was Greta there when Laura posed with the hefty bag in the UAE?
JammieWearingFool on October 29, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I don’t believe that AHA would have put it on. She would have probably given them a look that said ‘drop dead’, or calmly said that she took that scarf off many years ago and that she will never have another one on her being for as long as she lives.
But, I don’t believe she would have gone on a Middle Eastern tour such as this. Her security is threatened enough in the Western world. Why give the jihadis an even closer reach to her neck?
WriterMom on October 29, 2007 at 2:59 PM
You didn’t notice her. She’s thin. She was a baggie.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Tabloid Greta, Fox News’ version of The National Enquirer – tells other people to “get a life”?
OhEssYouCowboys on October 29, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Two reasons: the meaning of the scarf is different to each of them. And they are two different people with completely different missions: namely it is the administrations policy to promote freedom of religious expression throughout the world. Admirable as Ms. Ali’s work is, it is in a different vein then the First Lady, so to ask what she would do is to recast the entire scenario.
Spirit of 1776 on October 29, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Exactly, Greta doesn’t seem to be looking at the implications of this through someone like Ayaan’s eyes.
Speakup on October 29, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Pelosi is over in Syria working against our foreign policy and I’m going to apologize to her? Nevah!!
Hening on October 29, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Ayaan has a bone to pick with Islam since she is a victim of some of its ‘nuanced’ qualities, so I doubt she would have put the scarf on. Laura Bush, on the other hand, hasn’t.
Ayaan is a trouble-maker (highlighting the differences between the 2 cultures), while Laura Bush is a pacifier (highlighting the commonalities of the 2 cultures and trying to be as respectful as possible).
AP, you should have chosen a different person to make that point.
AlexB on October 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM
It was not a gift, it was a blatant manipulation. All they needed was that two minutes to capture the image that would make it around the world. It’s propaganda, pure and simple, and Laura gave it to them. She did not have to put it on. She could have graciously said thank you and draped it across her lap or handed it to an aide and it would not have been an international incident.
Middle Easterners are master propagandists, and we’re losing that particular front in the War on Terror.
aero on October 29, 2007 at 3:07 PM
It was not a gift, it was a blatant manipulation. All they needed was that two minutes to capture the image that would make it around the world. It’s propaganda, pure and simple, and Laura gave it to them. She did not have to put it on.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Y’know, liberal women like Greta should be the ones most outraged by things like the headscarf and burka. I honestly don’t understand why they’re not at the forefront of the fight against Muslim oppression of women. I mean, these are the inheritors of the bra-burning, freedom-loving, right-to-choose, rabid ERA-pushing feminists of the 1960s and 1970s. What happened to them?!
aero on October 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I disagree with that assessment.
Rick on October 29, 2007 at 3:12 PM
It makes one wonder – would the politicians of today [or their wives], visiting the Germany or the Soviet Union of the 1930s, wear a readily identifiable symbol of those Utopias? Just to be nice, or polite?
OhEssYouCowboys on October 29, 2007 at 3:14 PM
The problem with Pelosi wasn’t the headscarf. It was the location. She wore it in a terrorist-supporting, non-ally nation. Laura wore it in, though debatable, a recognized ally nation.
amerpundit on October 29, 2007 at 3:14 PM
It was both.
FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Surely this is a rhetorical question.
Trouble-maker? Maybe having your sex organs mutilated does that to a person. I am deeply grateful that I do not have personal knowledge on the subject.
Esthier on October 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I think the gift of the scarf did indeed surprise Laura and she did exactly what she would have done anywhere else – she put it on. I can see her doing the same with any sweater, scarf, or anything else – she’s a gracious lady and this is what ladies do with gifts.
Now whether she “should” have put it on or not is another question. From what I’ve seen, it doesn’t sound like there was much time for her to think – she just acted like herself. (shrug) No big deal, in all honesty.
I think she was surprised, she did what she would normally would have done, and now people are making a big deal out of it. Yes, she probably “shouldn’t” have put it on, but I think the bigger mistake is blowing this all out of proportion, thereby giving the photo more air time as well as controversy.
kippras on October 29, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Greta, how ’bout you get a brain and a clue.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:31 PM
You make it sound like Ayaan has overreacted to some of Islam’s trivial ‘nuanced’ qualities.
Why did you chose the term ‘nuanced’ instead of something more accurate, like ‘barbaric’? I wonder, are you perhaps concerned that you may have left enough of an online trail behind you that you fear somebody may track you down and practice some of their religions ‘nuance’ upon your neck?
FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 3:35 PM
And that’s why when Allah mentioned it as a reason we could feel better I wrote that it made me feel a little better about the situation, but that doesn’t take away from the sting.
She is a gracious lady, but surely she understand what the scarf symbolizes. Maybe Mein Kempf is a great book, but I wouldn’t expect Laura to do a photo op with the book in her hand if someone gives it to her.
Esthier on October 29, 2007 at 3:36 PM
In this day and age, according to moral relativists, the opposite of a trouble maker must be an appeaser. Although I bet chamberlains allies called his critics troublemakers.
peacenprosperity on October 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM
There is no such thing as treason in America anymore.
Not since Jane Fonda sat on that North Vietnamese gun.
Seriously Pelosi is not guilty of treason. That charge gets tossed around so lightly, kind of like bigot, that it is going to lose all meaning before long.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:44 PM
This off topic, but it’s one of my hobby horses. Our entire conception of Genghis Khan is due to muslim propaganda. He was a great leader and not really blood thirsty. You should read what the muslims had to do to provoke him.
Genghis Khan should be treated as an hero by those of us who oppose Islamification with the same zeal shown by Mongolians towards him.
thuja on October 29, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Because it is not in the RNC talking points.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I think your first sentence about Hanoi Jane is more accurate than your second sentence about tossing the charge around.
Rick on October 29, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Dream ticket for 2008: Pope Urban II / Genghis Khan.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:52 PM
But surely, MB4, you don’t think it is appropriate to get rid of the charge of treason? I think Mike Gravel should have been executed for treason for his part in the Pentagon papers. I think the NYT editors should be tried and executed for treason for revealing how we trace terrorist money. I’m hoping you’d agree here.
On the other hand, you are right we don’t want to throw it around for mere political disagreement. Pelosi going to Syria was the wrong thing to do, but it was not treason.
thuja on October 29, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Yah, I kind of had a sneaking suspicion that part one would go over a “little better” than part two.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Uh, there are more effective ways to demonstrate the value of an egalitarian society. Sticking your finger in the eye of an influential nation’s diplomatic corps is not one of them.
Perhaps the fact that she took the thing off after a few minutes?
The hijab is no more an inherent symbol of oppression than is the habit of the Catholic nun or the headdress for men required by Jewish custom. To say that it is categorically so is an implicit indictment of Islam as a whole. I.e. Islam is inherently and irrevocably oppressive and sexist. While I agree that the Wahhabist strain of Islam in Saudi Arabia is very much oppressive and sexist, as is the Islam practiced by most of the cultures in the Middle East, I cannot say that about all of Islam without qualification, nor should I expect Laura Bush to attempt to make that kind of a statement in the crucible of the moment of a diplomatic exchange.
In short, chill folks. I doubt you’d done any differently, had you been there.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 3:59 PM
yeah, i read an account of the sacking of Baghdad by the mongols that was awesome. It was a while back, but it was in this book. It’s terrific.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I absolutely do not agree. I would not even want to live in a country like that. If any President tried to do that I think that the military would arrest him. You surprise me thuja.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I hope you didn’t get the wrong idea that I dislike Ayaan. On the contrary, I admire her a lot. But she is 100% trouble maker because she refuses to play nice.
AlexB on October 29, 2007 at 4:08 PM
That is why she shouldn’t be compared to Laura Bush – who is not only a calm person that does play nice, but her role in the world is entirely different.
AlexB on October 29, 2007 at 4:09 PM
What’s the matter with treason charges?
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Defending Laura’s acceptance of a symbol of the brutal oppression of women on the basis that the women of other cultures have also been known to cover their hair is tantamount to defending chains around the necks of slaves because people in other cultures wear necklaces. One is a symbol of malignant oppression and the other is not.
- FloatingRock
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:16 PM
The word choice just seemed off. Plus, Laura Bush has the luxury of playing nice. Ayaan, if she wanted some sort of self identity, did not.
I just wouldn’t call it trouble-making when one is standing up for basic rights.
Your clarification is appreciated though. I had gotten the wrong idea.
Esthier on October 29, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Make the case for these charges.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Most of the so-called feminists sold-out a long time ago. The rhetoric was not the reality. Once again, the activists are not at all what they purported to be. Surprised?
My collie says:
Yes, but let’s not dwell on that today. I, for one, take solace in that fact that God has a sense of humor. After all, Jerry Reubin met his demise while jay-walking. His ignominious end was every bit as meaningless and senseless as his activism. It’ll be interesting to see what fate is in store for the feminist rabble rowsers of the ’60s and ’70s.
CyberCipher on October 29, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Didn’t intend to. Not my job. But you apparently have decided that no charges are warranted. Just wondered how you knew, or whether treason charges are off the table with you in general.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Let’s maybe take some deep breaths. Nonsense like that is not helpful.
Dash on October 29, 2007 at 4:30 PM
AP, you and I know that was a rhetorical question. Others appear to be taking it seriously.
The world can be divided into those for whom “troublemaker” is an insult, and those for whom it is a compliment.
I’m on AHA’s side. God help those on the other side, because I sure won’t.
Splashman on October 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM
MB4, I think you completely misread what I said. I didn’t mean the Bushitler should execute the entire NYT staff. I mean that we simply conduct a trail of the editor according to what is in the US Consitution, Article 3 section 3:
Again, I have no interest in permitting the executive too much power to punish. I posess some lingering fondness for the ACLU and I understand their discomfort over Gitmo, but until the international community becomes sane and writes up some better conventions, we are stuck with this bad alternative.
thuja on October 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM
If the glove no fit you must acquitI “assume” that someone is not guilty of treason unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. I see no evidence that Pelosi is guilty of something that rises to the level of treason. As for Mike Gravel and the NYT editors, there are those that think that LBJ was guilty or treason and/or other high crimes and some on the left who think that GWB is guilty of treason and/or other high crimes.All this makes me very “uncomfortable”.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Ok. I don’t know if anyone is guilty of anything. But I don’t take treason off the table. (Would take a constitutional amendment btw).
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 4:44 PM
We are copasetic here.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I don’t take it off the table completely either, but it is a high bar. I think that the Rosenbergs made it, but not many do to the point of execution anyway. It has become more of a rhetorical political charge lately and has thus become very contaminated.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:48 PM
So is Greta trying to tell us that Pelosi’s scarves were gifts and she only had them on a couple of minutes out of politeness? The two situations were entirely different or they were exactly alike. And since they were entirely different, Greta can STF up. Said very nicely, of course. ::grin::
Sue on October 29, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I have to agree with Mrs. Bush regarding the sentiment. It was a nice gift, and she accepted it gracefully. However, I do not understand why she could not have simply wrapped it around her neck/shoulders, and simply declined to cover her head. It’s not part of her custom, and it should not have surprised anyone if she was unwilling to cover her head. I think that she did it without thinking, but still…
lan astaslem on October 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Except that the hijab is something worn by choice as a symbol of submission to Allah, which is no different in terms of symbolic significance than the headdress worn by Jewish males, or the submission of Hindus to the rigid requirements of the caste system. By your analogy, they’re all slaves. You’re welcome to believe that, but I don’t want you anywhere near a foreign office, thanks. You’ll get us all killed.
The distinction is that the hijab is used as a tool for oppression by cultures and societies that have a vested interest in oppressing their female populations. That you’re asking Laura Bush to try to make such a subtle distinction in the crucible of the moment, with a scarf, demonstrates irrational expectations.
Chill, please.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Therein is my big problem with accusations of treason. Many on the right, at least to “hear” them talk, seem to think that pretty much all democrats and non-democrats who oppose the Iraq war or any number of other things are guilty of giving “Aid and Comfort”. It is tossed around in the extreme. Of course, those on the left have their own version of this. I am actually not too worried though that any President, or his Justice Department, would dare to bring formal charges without grievous crimes and overwhelming evidence though because if they did military officers would likely arrest them to keep the country from coming apart.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:00 PM
You sound very naive.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:02 PM
AH HAHAHAHAHA /off Strong Bad
- The Cat
MirCat on October 29, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Possibly. I just think there are better ways to demonstrate the superiority of our cultural ethic than giving the finger to an ally’s diplomatic corps.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Saudi Arabia, where 14 of the 9/11 murderers came from, and which finances hate “schools” in the U.S. and Europe, is not our ally.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:35 PM
What is this?
Treaties have meanings. You don’t just break them cuz you’re hacked off.
If you wanted to end all ties with Saudi Arabia, then wouldn’t it be smarter not to even send the First Lady in the first place? Because by sending her, you’re already implicitly supporting the Saudi government and the Islamic doctrines on which it’s founded. By your estimation we should have started the bombing runs years ago, and yet you’re haranguing the First Lady for wearing a scarf?
You should save your ire for our State Department and leave the First Lady alone.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:53 PM
That is not correct.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 6:01 PM
So you’re excusing it based on the principle of moral-relativism?
FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Presidents do not, as a general policy, send their First Ladies to nations whose governments are seen as hostile to American interests. First, there’s an implied trust in the stability of a nation’s government when you put the First Lady in their protection. Second, her position as “hostess of the White House” makes her presence in any diplomatic situation one of receptive cordiality. Receptive cordiality implies tolerance.
Hillary Clinton’s gallivanting notwithstanding, the First Lady has always been used as a diffuser of diplomatic hostility. Her presence implies either the lack of or desire to diffuse said hostility. The United States Department of State is committed to the policy of positive relations with the Saudi Royal Family. Laura Bush’s cancer awareness trip is part of that overall policy and would not have happened if Foggy Bottom didn’t want to assure the Sauds that “we’re still pals.”
If you wanna be angry, be angry at State and Rice. Leave Laura Bush out of this.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Excusing what? The fact that Laura Bush had to make a decision and decided to err on the side of diplomatic cordiality? What’s to excuse?
The State Department has repeatedly held to the policy that Islam is not our enemy. This is not a war on Islam. Laura Bush’s gracious acceptance of a gift helps to prove that, for what it’s worth.
Regarding moral relativism, I am saying nothing of the kind. I’m the one using objective reality here. It is a fact that Islam is not categorically a worse religion than Hinduism, Buddhism or Catholicism. It is a fact that making the Global War on Terror a Global War on Islam is a bad idea. It is a fact that any Muslim with two brain cells on speaking terms would see her rejection of that gift as an outright insult both to the Saudi Royal Family and to Islam in general. It is a fact that the United States is in no position to insult the Saudis or Islam. We just don’t have the stuff.
That’s reality. Is it right? Not really. It would be nice if we could tell the Saudis were to stick it, pull up stakes and head home to 50 cents a gallon. It would be nice if we could make all those misogynistic bastards quit beating their wives and mutilating their daughters. It would be nice if we could prevent Castro from starving his people. it would be nice if we could make the Palestinians actually want peace and prosperity for their kids rather than the joy of watching Jews die.
It would be nice, but it ain’t gonna happen by throwing the kind of temper tantrums you folks are damning Laura Bush for avoiding.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Yup, that’s moral-relativism all right.
FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 7:31 PM
He also publicly humiliated her by later refusing to meet her just as a Clinton staffer once spent some eight hours on the airport tarmac waiting for his dad to meet him.
That and Putin’s recent public humiliation of Rice and Gates and the British hostage episode bodes ill for the free world as the chances of terrorist attacks increase as the West constantly becomes the butt of a joke.
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 7:32 PM
In its doctrine and the acting out of the central tenets of its faith it is worse than Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism put together. You’re not using objective reality merely your assumptions
Nobody is saying that. However it should be a war on those who actively participate in the jihad doctrine of warfare contained within Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who want to get on with their lives yes but many don’t and not all of them are terrorists, many are those advancing jihad in non-lethal forms.
It is imperative to admit to ourselves that jihad stems from Islam (see the Koran, Hadith and Sira) and not make submissive gestures to hostile pseudo-allies. The Saudis do only so much as they can get away with. The hostility of Muslims is based on theological beliefs. They respect fortitude and despise weakness.
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 7:15 PM
How do you say both of these things at the same time?
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Easily. I know Muslims that reject those aspects of their religion and wear head scarves. Just like I know Hindus that reject the more oppressive aspects of the caste system. I also know Catholics that do not follow the practice of self-flagellation or make a habit of burning heretics. The difference? Islam has had no worldwide movement towards reform. That is the desired goal, and it isn’t going to come by telling them they’re all a bunch of wife-beaters and maims, shape up or else.
Wife beating and female mutilation are problems endemic to certain Muslim cultures, but they are not endemic to all Muslim cultures. It is simply unjust, incorrect and counterproductive to attribute it to Islam as a whole. Those cultures that have such barbaric practices are the ones to which I referred to having a “vested interest” in oppressing their female populations, the ones that it “would be nice if we could” make them stop.
Their stopping will not be facilitated in any meaningful way whatsoever by the First Lady going out of her way to insult an allied foreign power.
“The hijab symbolizes female genital mutilation… Laura Bush is condoning the oppression of women… She should have wagged her finger in condemnation of the Saudis…” And so forth. That’s the sentiment of the comments condemning the First Lady, at least as I read them.
That is quite an indictment. The world went to war 60 years ago with fascism, and for good reason. Are you saying that Islam is an irretrievably fascist ideology?
Equating the hijab to female genital mutilation is a categorical indictment of Islam. A clear and unequivocal accusation. For the First Lady to even insinuate that would be tantamount to America declaring war on Islam. If you want her to do that, fine. I think that’s foolish.
The First Lady should not be the spearhead of our righteous indignation. That’s what our military is for.
Yes certain Muslims are interpreting the Koran rationally to seek irrational and evil goals. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Or the fact that Laura Bush was trying to be a gracious guest among the Saudi Royal Family, our ally?
Does Islam need to be reformed? Yes. Please labor with them to do so instead of asking the First Lady to rattle your saber for you.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I would add, though, that I understand that there are Muslims that wish to establish Shariah law in the West. I do not see them as friends. I do not see them as reformers. I’m only making the point that the First Lady giving the Saudis the bird will in no way facilitate a world-wide reform of Islam; it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 10:24 PM
So then presented with the choice of dhimmification or war, we should choose the path of appeasement and dhimmitude? And had Laura chosen, (as a free woman), to not adorn her head with a symbol of tyranny and oppression it would have inevitably led to this war? And our First Lady, having being presented with such a choice and choosing incorrectly, you’re saying that we shouldn’t make such a big fuss over it? And in fact she chose correctly?
FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Yippee! So do I. That doesn’t alter the theology of Islam. It’s nice that some decent Muslims reject the violent parts of their religion but that does not change the fact that Allah commands them to wage war against the unbelievers.
I’m a Catholic myself but I must have missed the part where Jesus told his followers to burn heretics.
They are endemic to Islam theologically. The Islamic societies where they do not flourish (Turkey, Tunisia, Soviet-ruled Central Asia) are where Islam has been suppressed. The societies in which they do flourish (Iran, Saudi Arabia, modern Britain) are those in which Islam is sacred.
It certainly is (quite an indictment, I mean). Islam is irretrievably totalitarian, racist and oppressive. It predates fascism by over a thousand years yet is parallel in its attempt to subjugate the intellect, create an empire based on a hierarchical slave empire (Third Reich, Caliphate) and control every aspect of every person’s life.
When did I say that?
Although the phrase “righteous indignation” is almost always used sarcastically and derisively I think that our (my?) indignation is righteous and completely justified.
Irrational by our standards. They are carrying out what they believe is the word of Allah (the God, not the blogger). They are interpreting the Koran correctly by the litmus test of every accepted Muslim scholar of the thousand-and-a-half years.
I haven’t got the slightest clue what you’re dribbling on about.
Some ally. Being a Republican myself (in the traditional sense, not the political party) I wouldn’t offer the steam off my piss to any Royal Family let alone the Saudis who are utterly undeserving of graciousness (grace being a Christian concept.)
Why do these Muslims wish to establish Shariah law in the West? Because it is a central tenet of their religion. How on earth can you talk about reforming Islam when you haven’t the slightest clue of what Muslims believe? It can’t be reformed, not really. It can be interpreted non-literally (unlikely) or negated through philosophical and theological criticism. I’d be all for that but even here on HotAir genuine critical discussion of Islamic theology by anyone except Robert Spencer throws up a gallery of dupes (spmat, DaveS) who don’t even know what they’re talking about.
It would be nice if courageous athiests like Allahpundit, jummy, Nonfactor and JayHawPhrenzie would expand on this pressing “theocon” issue. Given that Christianity takes a daily beating on this blog it would be nice if I could criticise Islam without my thoughts being called “unjust, incorrect and counterproductive”.
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Wrong. Nations wage wars, not the military. It is merely one aspect of the war effort albeit the most crucial. You can’t send your military off to war, press the Snooze button and roll over back to sleep. It doesn’t work that way. If the First Lady is submitting to barbaric customs then ultimately capturing Anbar isn’t going to be enough.
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 11:35 PM
No. Nor would Ayn Rand, or better yet Margaret Thatcher. We need so many more like them today.
Laura, Nancy and Greta need to get a clue and a life. All three can’t even hold a candle to or walk in the shadow of the three aforementioned strong ladies.
Often in life I’ve been asked to do things in the name of other people’s culture or religion. I’ve always politely declined, without offending anyone. It is possible to remain true to self, without offending and especially without submitting.
Laura could make a huge difference and doesn’t. Nancy thinks she’s big and isn’t. And…Greta doesn’t matter.
Entelechy on October 30, 2007 at 12:54 AM
aengus, my point is the defense of Laura Bush’s decision to accept and try on a head scarf as a polite gesture of appreciation. I’m also defending the existence of the hijab as an aspect of valid religious expression, as it is qualitatively no different from the headdress required by Orthodox Judaism (both symbolize submission, both are by choice), among other religious symbols. Wearing a head scarf is not a “barbaric custom” except within cultures that have not chosen to rise above barbarism.
I am not saying that Islam is perfect just as it is; it has serious defects that make it incompatible with Western civilization, just as Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism have in the past. I am saying that Islam is reformable, however, due to its doctrine of abrogation. That reformation will come over time, as societies like Iraq and Kurdistan demonstrate the positive value of secular government and religious tolerance. Muslims must desire to join the West as Muslims before they will seek to conform Islam to the best of Western values, as Hindu cultures like India have in the past 50 years. The must walk willingly through that door, not be dragged and whipped. Hostile intransigence and self-satisfied condemnation will not induce this, nor will Laura Bush’s rejection of a scarf.
I don’t attack Robert Spencer because I respect his arguments, and I agree with the man’s conclusions, the insults of his devotees like you notwithstanding. I also know that he isn’t advocating for the eradication of Islam. I have no reason to believe the same of you.
spmat on October 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Comment pages: