Nancy Pelosi Dons the Hijab


#41

Optimism? Yes, I suppose so. Resoluteness? Definitely. I have learned the mistake of pulling out of Vietnam too early. Had we stayed five years longer, I doubt that South Vietnam would have fallen, the Killing Fields may never have taken place. We do now have access to North Vietnamese records of how the Viet Cong had been decimated by Tet, but how they had won their political gamble. We now understand that their invasion of 1972 left them decimated as well, but again another political victory. I think that our friends in the Middle East understand that far better than we do. Ironically, we have such well educated journalists. Yet, few see that. Most are attempting to engage in “dialogue” rather than reporting and interpreting events with any great insight. I believe that even the Democrats understand this. Even with a Democrat president, this will go on. I believe that. And with enough time… Iran may fall… And when Iran falls… Half our problems will be over… but there will be Pakistan and that is where we must be ready to fight and fight to win. Time is ticking. I am confident that time will bring about the downfall of the mullahs. Time is ticking and I am utterly terrified of what it has in store for us courtesy of Pakistan.


#42

Optimism? Yes, I suppose so. Resoluteness? Definitely. I have learned the mistake of pulling out of Vietnam too early. Had we stayed five years longer, I doubt that South Vietnam would have fallen, the Killing Fields may never have taken place. . . . [/quote]

Do you have any idea who deposed Pol Pot and drove the Khmer Rouge from power?

Here’s a clue.


#43

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“MikeN”][quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“MikeN”]You mean, just like Laura and Condi did?

dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/4/115721/7509
Daily Kos: Laura Bush is a traitor

But I’m sure that’s different because…because… because it just is, dammit.[/quote]

Not to me it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with women wearing headcovers…if it is their choice. It is illegal in some Muslim countries for women not to wear one (and cover their bodies in way men never have to). When our female ambassadors wear them for the benefit of our Middle Eastern “allies”, it gives legitimacy to those laws forcing women to wear hijabs.[/quote]

Uh, hello?..She wore the headscarf while she was visiting a mosque (the tomb of John the Baptist, actually). Islamic custom requires a woman to cover her hair in church, just like the Catholic Church did until 1983; just like the Bible orders ( 1 Corinthians 11), just like most Eastern Orthodox churches do; just like Orthodox Jewish women do.

She did not wear it while meeting with Assad, as the photos clearly show.

If you’re the type of dork who wanders into St Peter’s Basilica wearing your shorts, flip-flops and “I’m With Stoopid” T-shirt, I suppose you could get upset about this.[/quote]

Actually, it’s Islamic custom for women to wear veils EVERYWHERE, not just in mosques (well, they don’t have to wear veils around other women only or close male relatives). And in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, NOT wearing a veil is punishable by fines or corporal punishment. Wearing the hijab legitimizing this practice, in my opinion.[/quote]

BUZZZ!! Sorry, wrong again: the vast majority of Muslim women do not wear veils; witness Indonesia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Malaysia, just to mention the Muslim countries I’ve personally been to (they did in Afghanistan when I was there, but mostly not in Iran, though some do now, I hear.)


#44

Muslim women wear veils in all those countries, as some do in Western countries too. In Turkey it is illegal for women to wear veils in certain places; I had a Muslim student who had emigrated to the US because the secular Turkish government would not allow her to wear her veil at school. And why does the Turkish government do this? The same reason Ataturk wouldn’t let men wear Fez caps. The hijab is considered a mark of piety and has long been a visible feature of Islamic society. Forcing men to wear Western clothing, including Western style hats, banning women from wearing burkas, and recently banning the hijab in public spaces is part of an ongoing culture war between the secular republic and the fundamentalists.

Your assertion that wearing hijabs is only mandatory in mosques is wrong. You are probably thinking of Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth, where he mentions that it is shameful for a woman to not cover her head when praying. The Qur’an doesn’t say anything about women wearing veils specifically during worship. It says they should be modest, lower their gazes, and draw their veils around their bosoms (24:31). Ever seen those veils that fall far down the shoulders and cover the top of the chest? That’s why they are so long. The Qur’an also says women should draw their cloaks around them when they go outside (33:59). When the Quran was written, “cloaks” referred to the same billowy dresses Muslim women and men wear in part of the Arabian peninsula today. There are several hadith which specifically address face veils, but those refer to Muhammad’s wives, and there is a controversy as to whether those passages should be applied to all Muslim women. But veiling is part of Islamic custom, not universally accepted as part of Islamic law, despite Saudi Arabia’s draconian punishments for not veiling.

It’s true of course that many Muslim women do not wear veils, but I’m surprised to hear you say most do not, even in the Muslim countries you’ve visited. From the pictures and videos I’ve seen of Pakistan, it sure looked like most women were veiled, even young girls. But you seem like an honest guy and I believe you. About what percentage of women would you say were veiled in the Muslim countries you have visited (overall)?


#45

When engaging in diplomacy with other countries, one receives maximum mileage by following their customs. When in Rome…

Imagine the progress a diplomat would make if he went to Thailand and insulted the King. Or came to the US and told the President “Your Jesus fellah was a terrorist”.


#46

and do you have any idea when and how Pol Pot came to power in the first place?


#47

and do you have any idea when and how Pol Pot came to power in the first place?[/quote]

Yes, but by the time of the Killing Fields the Vietnamese had abandoned him and he’d allied himself with radical communist elements in Maoist China.


#48

So, er, Spook, if I, um, was, er, making the point, umm, that the Killing Fields would not have happened if the Americans had not left, er, um, might that have, er,made, um, a difference in whether, um, Pol Pot, er, was capable of engineering a takeover, er, um, ah, of Cambodia, er, um, ha, in the first place? Since as you have stated the Vietnamese “abandoned” him later?


#49

You seem to be confusing the veil with the headscarf. From the Moslem countries I have visited, including Iran, I would say that most do not wear a veil (that covers the face) but most do wear a headscarf. In Iran those that chose to wear a headscarf had them so far back on their heads, I was surprised they didn’t slide off. In India, many Hindu women wear headscarves. The bloody Queen wears a headscarf when driving around in her Range Rover finding spots for her eldest idiot sprog to shoot grouse. Princess Anne, the only Royal I like, wears a headscarf sometimes. My mother does. So what? But next time I go to a predominantly Moslem country I’ll do a head(scarf) count and give the exact percentage. That’s of course if I have any spare time from enjoying the welcoming hospitality and friendliness of the people who inhabit these Moslem lands. At the students union cafe* at the Nile University/College in Khartoum, most females wore no head covering whatsoever (although had it been in wetter climes it would have been advisable as most of the roof seemed to be missing or had never been constructed). In Ethiopia, an orthodox Christian country, most women wear some form of headscarf and when they visit holy sites such as Lalibela or the Church in Axum where Ethiopians claim the Arc of the Covenant is kept, they must be covered up. Ditto a lot of the men. I wore a hat and long-sleeved shirt.

Don’t forget also that in many of these countries, it is hot and the sun beats down relentlessly and not wearing a head covering of some sort would be silly. I even wore one of those 6 foot long white wrap-around things (I forget what they are called) because of the sun. No shortage of helpers to help me wrap it properly as it invariably unravelled at the most inopportune moments.

I don’t see what you are arguing against. The burkha / chador is a different matter. But headscarves? I have no idea whether you have been to a Moslem country or not but if not, go to one (Dubai is cheating) and work out the percentages for yourself. I’ll check my copy of the Qu’ran (NT$40 in Tehran) and your references but whatever it may say, the reality is there on the ground so go have a look.

As Chris said, “when in Rome”…although I would dispute the implication that Jesus was an American.

Nancy Pelosi did the correct thing by wearing a headscarf when church-hopping in Syria. That she didn’t when talking to President Assad (whose English is of a higher standard than Bush), is of no consequence as Syria is officially a secular state. She went with the flow. Again, so what?

*nothing to do with studies, I was chasing one of those, as TC quaintly put it, “hijab babes”.

BroonAssad


#50

So, er, Spook, if I, um, was, er, making the point, umm, that the Killing Fields would not have happened if the Americans had not left, er, um, might that have, er,made, um, a difference in whether, um, Pol Pot, er, was capable of engineering a takeover, er, um, ah, of Cambodia, er, um, ha, in the first place? Since as you have stated the Vietnamese “abandoned” him later?[/quote]

Hopeless.

Guess who’s coming to dinner:

Phan Van Khai was a political leader of the NVA in South Viet Nam when South Viet Nam fell to the communists.


#51

Thanks for conceding my point regarding the fall of Vietnam and its effects on Cambodia which ultimately made the Killing Fields possible. Thanks also for the sheer hypocrisy of pointing to past enemies of the US who should never, I am assuming, be invited to the White House? once rehabilitated? reformed? I hope that you will be extending this policy to all your Palestinian “friends.” haha


#52

Pol Pot’s genocidal policies would have continued if the Vietnamese hadn’t driven him from power. I have no love for Vietnamese communists. By any standard, they were rank terrorists.

The point of showing you Bush with Phan Van Khai is that it’s time for you to emerge from your Cold War time warp about the Vietnam War and the consequences of losing it.


#53

:laughing:

Never happen I’m afraid, well not in this virtual life at least.

HG


#54

[quote]Pol Pot’s genocidal policies would have continued if the Vietnamese hadn’t driven him from power. I have no love for Vietnamese communists. By any standard, they were rank terrorists.

The point of showing you Bush with Phan Van Khai is that it’s time for you to emerge from your Cold War time warp about the Vietnam War and the consequences of losing it.[/quote]

Sigh… Spook… you are in one of your obstreperous moods today I see. I am not the one that has a problem with Bush meeting with Phan Van Khai NOW. My problem is with the Democrats for cutting off aid to South Vietnam when we had already won the war militarily. THAT is something even the North Vietnamese leadership has admitted. I suggested that had we stayed another five years the Killing Fields MIGHT not have happened. How did Pol Pot come to power? I fully recognize that it was the Vietnamese regime that removed him but ultimately why and how did he achieve control of Cambodia? Please answer THAT.


#55

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Pol Pot’s genocidal policies would have continued if the Vietnamese hadn’t driven him from power. I have no love for Vietnamese communists. By any standard, they were rank terrorists.

The point of showing you Bush with Phan Van Khai is that it’s time for you to emerge from your Cold War time warp about the Vietnam War and the consequences of losing it.[/quote]

Sigh… Spook… you are in one of your obstreperous moods today I see. I am not the one that has a problem with Bush meeting with Phan Van Khai NOW. My problem is with the Democrats for cutting off aid to South Vietnam when we had already won the war militarily. THAT is something even the North Vietnamese leadership has admitted. I suggested that had we stayed another five years the Killing Fields MIGHT not have happened. How did Pol Pot come to power? I fully recognize that it was the Vietnamese regime that removed him but ultimately why and how did he achieve control of Cambodia? Please answer THAT.[/quote]

He came to power circa 1970 because the regional communist powers – China and North Viet Nam – backed him. His Killing Field excesses drove Cambodian refugees into Viet Nam which sparked clashes with Vietnamese forces and eventually led to his ouster.


#56

I think you may wish to review the timeline of Cambodia’s leadership. Lon Nol was in office during the time you are referring to. Please see below.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot


#57

[quote=“fred smith”]I think you may wish to review the timeline of Cambodia’s leadership. Lon Nol was in office during the time you are referring to. Please see below.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot[/quote]

The Khmer Rouge ruled the countryside during the early seventies, much as the insurgency and militias in Iraq rule most of the countryside outside the Green Zone today.


#58

We are getting a bit far off the subject. Would you say that the collapse of South Vietnam’s government was in anyway responsible for the events that led to the collapse of Cambodia’s government and ultimately the killing fields? Also, I find it highly ironic that a whole generation of peace protesters condemned our illegal bombing of Cambodia and here right on wikipedia we have the facts that yes the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were in fact setting up shop just on the other side of the border and with Sihanouk’s blessing. I guess Nixon and Kissinger were right, eh? Wonder what else the lefties and peace brigade at the time were wrong about? hmm?


#59

You’re right. When I say “veil” I actually think of the Arabic term “hijab” where refers to a headscarf. When I say “face veil” I think of “naqib”. I rarely use the term “headscarf” in English. So I think MikeN meant most Muslim women do not wear the naqib. If you read Muslim websites you’ll find that Muslims use the term “veil” to refer to hijab more so can “headscarf”. And yes they debate whether it is obligatory ad nauseum as well. Thanks for clearing that up.

And you won’t find anything in the Qur’an about face veils from what I remember, just the references to wrap their veils (Arabic: hijab) around their bosoms, be modest, turn down their gaze, etc. The whole point is modesty. Wearing shapeless clothing, covering their hair, not associating with unrelated men, staying home most of the time, even limiting themselves to women-only parts of their homes (called “haram”, meaning forbidden), are all normal expectations put on Islamic women. I say it’s oppression. Turkey was right to ban the hijab in public spaces, as was France. Even when it is not illegal to wear them, the family and community pressure to do so is immense. I know diplomats are supposed to reach out to the local culture, but wearing hijabs justifies an oppressive practice than even the Turkish government is trying to abolish.

And I know that other cultures besides Islam favor head coverings for women. The pagan Greeks and Romans did, the Jews did, and the Christians followed the custom and still do so in that part of the world. But head coverings have always been associated with modesty and religion more so than practicality. Greco-Roman women always wore head coverings during rituals, as did Jewish women. Someone mentioned that in Syria prostitutes don’t wear head coverings. That isn’t surprising, as it has always been illegal for prostitutes to wear head coverings in that part of the world.

On the diplomats thing again, why is it so important we embrace other cultures? We’re superior! We just should conquer them and impose our own values. Right everyone? :wink:


#60

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Turkey was right to ban the hijab in public spaces, as was France. Even when it is not illegal to wear them, the family and community pressure to do so is immense. I know diplomats are supposed to reach out to the local culture, but wearing hijabs justifies an oppressive practice than even the Turkish government is trying to abolish. [/quote]Turkey was right; France is wrong. The Turks implemented the policy to free the government from religious influence, an ongoing struggle in which degrees of freedom genuinely hang in the balance. France drove Catholicism from the public forum for the same reason, but long since won that fight. At this point, in France, the policy is more about the imposition of an ideological position than it is ensuring greater degrees of freedom for either the state or individuals.