Posted on 10/26/2007 4:11:31 AM PDT by WWTD
When I first wrote about First Lady Laura Bush's latest Breast Cancer Awareness Tour of the Extremist Islamic World (redundant), I noted that Mrs. Bush's PR team told the press that she would not, under any circumstances, don an Islamic headscarf or anything of the sort:
"They do not expect nor encourage it," of Western visitors at official meetings, said Bush's spokeswoman, Sally McDonough. "As members of the official traveling party, we will not need to wear any head scarves or abayas at any point."
I didn't buy it. And, as usual, my instincts were correct. This is Sheikha Laura, yesterday, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (thanks to reader "greatcometof1577").
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
because of this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html
No, a goodwill ambassador deliberately offending her hosts would have been stupid. I suppose you believe that a man wearing the ugly tie his young child gives him for Christmas is submitting to the will of the child?
Your forceful opinion notwithstanding, perhaps you should consider that Laura also took off the scarf. Or is that part of the supposed "message" too subtle for you?
“Debbie you ignorant slut”
She was accepting a GIFT!
The radical loser (Long Read)
Der Spiegel ^ | 1/12/05 | Hans Magnus Enzensberger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694568/posts
(snip)
There is also no mistaking other similarities, such as the fixation with written authorities. The place of Marx and Lenin is taken by the Koran, references are made not to Gramsci but to Sayyid Qutb. Instead of the international proletariat, it takes as its revolutionary subject the Umma, and as its avant-garde and self-appointed representative of the masses it takes not The Party but the widely branching conspiratorial network of Islamist fighters. Although the movement can draw on older rhetorical forms which to outsiders may sound high-flown or big-mouthed, it owes many of its idées fixes to its Communist enemy: history obeys rigid laws, victory is inevitable, deviationists and traitors are to be exposed and then, in fine Leninist tradition, bombarded with ritual insults.
The movement’s list of favourite foes is also short on surprises: America, the decadent West, international capital, Zionism. The list is completed by the unbelievers, that is to say the remaining 5.2 billion people on the planet. Not forgetting apostate Muslims who may be found among the Shiites, Ibadhis, Alawites, Zaidites, Ahmadiyyas, Wahhabis, Druze, Sufis, Kharijites, Ishmaelites or other religious communities.
(snip)
Contrary to what the West appears to believe, the destructive energy of Islamist actions is directed mainly against Muslims. This is not a tactical error, not a case of “collateral damage”. In Algeria alone, Islamist terror has cost the lives of at least 50,000 fellow Algerians. Other sources speak of as many as 150,000 murders, although the military and the secret services were also involved. In Iraq and Afghanistan, too, the number of Muslim victims far outstrips the death toll among foreigners. Furthermore, terrorism has been highly detrimental not only to the image of Islam but also to the living conditions of Muslims around the world.
The Islamists are as unconcerned about this as the Nazis were about the downfall of Germany. As the avant-garde of death, they have no regard for the lives of their fellow believers. In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves. After all, the aim of the radical loser is to make as many other people into losers as possible. As the Islamists see it, the fact that they are in the minority can only be because they are the chosen few.
That says it all. Shame on members of this forum, along with Debbie Schlussel, that would make anything out of this other than what it is. Laura is not Catholic, yet, she donned a scarf the entire time while meeting with the Pope. Where is the outrage over that? I hope she never meets with the Amish and wears a bonnet, god forbid!
Women wear head scarves throughout the world, and placing a scarf on one's head does not necessarily imply that the wearer has embraced Islam. I believe that since it was a gift, that our First Lady perceived the gesture to be a cultural one, and not a religious one. She was obviously brought up to respond in that manner. To answer your question, if it would not expose me to bodily harm, I would consider the gift of a swastika or an embroidered hammer and sickle as an insult, and I would probably stomp on it, spit on it, maybe set it on fire. The giver would have to be aware that it could not possibly have utility for me or my wife. I fail to see what we would have gained from considering the Saudi women's gesture as an insult.
The fact that Mrs. Bush is clearly seen in other photos not donning a headscarf, undoubtedly taking a stand on the issue, gives her a pass, for me, as relates to what should be considered a harmless gift from a bunch of women who were hosting her in their home.
A whole, whole lot of Muslims are our true allies.
-
no, they are our allies just like Stalin was our ally in ww2
don’t use the word crusade.
Did I miss where they did this , or threatened to do this to Mrs. Bush for not wearing a headscarf to the occasion?
If we only allow ourselves to behave in ways that are dictated by the enemy, we have capitulated. By accepting the gift in time-honored fashion, and subsequently removing it for the continuance of her travel, she threw off the supposed submission as much as she took it on, in your view.
bttt
A lot of people willing to throw Shlussel under the bus for telling the truth.
That says it all. Shame on members of this forum, along with Debbie Schlussel, that would make anything out of this other than what it is. Laura is not Catholic, yet, she donned a scarf the entire time while meeting with the Pope. Where is the outrage over that? I hope she never meets with the Amish and wears a bonnet, god forbid!
-
so you’re comparing catholics with islam, a religion that believes that all Jews and Christians must either convert, die or accept dhimmitude.
And if one of “them” came over and donned a Stetson, or Santa Claus hat, or something similar it would be nothing more than a brief moment of recognizing a gift and cultural icon.
Go home and get mommy to help you get your panties unwadded.
On this thread there seems to be a general forgiveness of Laura for donning the headscarf - It was a gift, she only had it on for a fleeting moment, she wasn’t pandering to muslims she was just being polite, etc.
If this was Nancy Pelosi or Hillary instead of Laura Bush would posters be so forgiving of this conduct?
Just asking.
When the word "crusade" becomes hate speech we will know that the powers that be consider our culture to be subservient to all others.
I would.
I think it has been a long standing custom of US officials to accommodate other cultures while visiting their countries.
When in Rome.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.