BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Of French hostages and headscarves

21 comments on Of French hostages and headscarves

Of French hostages and headscarves

: The irony is downright tragic: The French refuse to support the war in Iraq and yet Iraqi terrorists kidnap two French journalists anyway because the country bans Muslim headscarves. Both French decisions were wrong, in my book, but, of course, that’s no reason to offer anything other than support to the hostages and their nation.

And I also offer this hope: That the French learn a lesson from this: There is no sense in cozying up to terrorists and in forgetting who your allies should be. To

the terrorists, all of civilization is an enemy… and that includes you, France.

: UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan said it better than I could (of course):

One can only hope that Paris gets the message. There is no escaping this fight. It is civilization or Jihadism. We can and should debate tactics; but the sides are clear enough.

21 responses to “Of French hostages and headscarves”

  1. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Jeff,
    What a silly post on multiple levels. First they’re not cozying up to terrorists but opposed a war that clearly had nothing to do with terrorists. Before this war, where were the terrorists? Now, of course you can find them on any street corner in Baghdad – you think the French might have had an inkling that this war would produce such an effect?
    And surely you felt outraged by the attitude of those Europeans who said that while unjustifiable, US had brought 9/11 on itself, yet you want to lecture another country when it is going through a traumatic event.

  2. BigFire Avatar
    BigFire

    I believe the head scarf is mostly just smoke to cover up the fact that they snatched the wrong foreigners and now need some kind of excuse to get out of it. Mostly they just want money (remember how well it went for the kidnappers of Philippines).

  3. Robert McClelland Avatar
    Robert McClelland

    The irony is downright tragic
    Yes it is, but not for the reasons you state. The real tragic irony is that “Iraqi terrorists” now exist where none did before.

  4. Cog Avatar
    Cog

    I would go two steps furthur, Russia/China/France were primarily responsible for bankrolling and arming Saddam for 30 years. And all 3 were major participants in the oil-for-food scandal.
    I think the kidnapping and beheading of journalists is abhorent, but to be honest, it is a progression of the actions taken by Spain and Indonesia.
    If Spain or Indonesia had increased troop levels in Afghanistan briefly while pulling them out of Iraq, it would have dampened the impact of appeasing the terrorists. But like Bush, a number of foreign leaders are completely inept diplomatically. Bush in dealing with allies, a few other countries when dealing with terrorists.

  5. Cog Avatar
    Cog

    “Before this war, where were the terrorists?”
    Is this supposed to be a joke? It is a sick one. If you do not think Iran/Syria/SaudiArabia had terrorists moving in and out of Iraq before the war you are naive. If you do not consider Saddam’s $25000 payments for terrorism in Isreal terrorism, you are blind. And if you did not listen to the tales of countless Iraqis of Saddams murder/torture/rape , then you are blind.
    No terrorists before the war. Right. Bash Bush all you like, but at least be honest about it.

  6. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    Cog made one of the points I was going to make about “where were the terrorists”.
    The terrorists we saw in action against the US on 9/11 didn’t just appear out of nowhere that day. Look around the globe before 9/11. Don’t see any terrorists? Look harder and look up some history.
    I agree France should not be placed into the situation it’s in now. I think their stance on head scarves is terribly prejudiced, but that doesn’t mean their citizens deserve to be killed because of it.
    France can thank other countries who have yielded to terrorists’ demands for the current situation. The terrorists have seen how other countries are willing to yield to demands so they figure France will as well. It’s disgusting and barbaric. Just like the terrorists who want to kill all of us.

  7. shark Avatar
    shark

    The real tragic irony is that “Iraqi terrorists” now exist where none did before
    Lets get this straight: These are NOT Iraqi terrorists. These are foreigners who went to Iraq, instead of THE UNITED STATES.
    Seems to me like a good thing, having them there instead of here, no?

  8. shark Avatar
    shark

    I think their stance on head scarves is terribly prejudiced
    I wouldn’t call it prejudiced. Heavy handed, yes. Crosses and Jewish religious symbols and clothing are also subject to the ban I believe. France wants to very much maintain secularism

  9. Robert McClelland Avatar
    Robert McClelland

    Lets get this straight: These are NOT Iraqi terrorists. These are foreigners who went to Iraq, instead of THE UNITED STATES.
    What BS. Are you so deluded that you cannot accept the fact that 99% of the insurgents are Iraqis backed up by a small number of foreigners?

  10. Eden Avatar
    Eden

    Franky: First they’re not cozying up to terrorists […]
    Well, in a way, they absolutely have been “cozying up” to terrorists– not directly, not inviting terrorists to dinner, but choosing to defend their oil and export interests where they know terrorists benefit from their position… Yes, they absolutely have done that. In Iraq recently, and in Darfur today.
    The U.S. is the only member of the security council in favor of stopping the genocide in Sudan– noone else wants to admit it exists, (like antiSemitism in France), much less do anything about it. Oh, and did I mention that there is oil in Sudan? Which France among others imports?
    Franky: […] but opposed a war that clearly had nothing to do with terrorists.
    Um. Yeah, ok. I guess turning around endless years of universally despotic governments in the Middle East has nothing to do with terrorists. Funny that the terrorists seem to feel very strongly that it does.
    %

  11. Eden Avatar
    Eden

    Shark: Crosses and Jewish religious symbols and clothing are also subject to the ban I believe.
    True. So, saying “muslim scarves have been banned” is misleading. The idea is that nobody in school can display any specific religion whatsoever.
    I don’t know if I agree with that, but there is certainly a reasonable argument to be made for it…
    %

  12. Eden Avatar
    Eden

    McClelland: Are you so deluded that you cannot accept the fact that 99% of the insurgents are Iraqis backed up by a small number of foreigners?
    Although you weren’t speaking to me, I have to admit that I personally am DEFINITELY so deluded that I don’t accept that.
    In fact, I think it’s absolute nonsense.
    Please share your credible sources with us.
    %

  13. Robert McClelland Avatar
    Robert McClelland

    Here you go.
    Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

  14. MB Avatar
    MB

    Personally, I consider the Baath party a terrorist organization, whose members likely make up the vast majority of the remaining 98%.

  15. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Robert’s “credible source” = USAToday???? ROTFLMAOLOLOLOLOL.

  16. Harry in Atlanta Avatar
    Harry in Atlanta

    If I’m not mistaken the muslim headscarf is not a religious symbol, it is political and was introduced most likely to blunt the effect of modern-day liberalization on muslim women. The practice of wearing the headscarf came in to being during the 1970’s after an edict “requiring their use” was issued from a high ranking imam. Face concealing veils, which are a cultural issue, are another matter so the two should not be confused.
    France has gotten itself into a tough spot with its muslim populace. Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves and muslims know it. But the muslims in France are attempting to force the French to submit, however marginally, to their will through both a suggestive threat of violence and outright violence which up to now has been generally aimed toward France’s Jewish population. But that can change and the French know it. The milque-toast French are always relieved and happy when someone else is the target of terrorist ire, such as the US, or when they have a convenient scapegoat to point to, such as the French Jews have become.
    The French are secularists. They understand that the push by muslims to bend France to their will is the first step in the quest for shari’a. Right now it is the hijab, but already French muslims are pushing for separate swimming pools and such. It is a fundamental threat to French culture and the rise of the dreaded religious spectre over their very comfortable and liberal society.
    That, however, is not the worst part. The worst part is how the French will eventually have to solve their “muslim” problem. My guess is that when the muslims have made a big enough nuisance of themselves and are no longer content on just terrorizing French Jews or directing their anger at the US and begin to terrorize the “right kind” of Frenchmen then you will see France stripping people of their citizenship wholesale and shipping them back to Algeria whether they were born in Algeria or not. It will be unfortunate but when French finally realize that they are losing their national identity and freedoms to placate a group of religious and political fanatics bent on establishing shari’a in France and Islam worldwide they will get right down in the dirt mean and deal with it as harshly as it takes to be effective, sensitivity be damned. And the French won’t give a damn what anyone has to say about it either. That’s how it is when your very survival is at stake.

  17. Harry in Atlanta Avatar
    Harry in Atlanta

    If I’m not mistaken the muslim headscarf is not a religious symbol, it is political and was introduced most likely to blunt the effect of modern-day liberalization on muslim women. The practice of wearing the headscarf came in to being during the 1970’s after an edict “requiring their use” was issued from a high ranking imam. Face concealing veils, which are a cultural issue, are another matter so the two should not be confused.
    France has gotten itself into a tough spot with its muslim populace. Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves and muslims know it. But the muslims in France are attempting to force the French to submit, however marginally, to their will through both a suggestive threat of violence and outright violence which up to now has been generally aimed toward France’s Jewish population. But that can change and the French know it. The milque-toast French are always relieved and happy when someone else is the target of terrorist ire, such as the US, or when they have a convenient scapegoat to point to, such as the French Jews have become.
    The French are secularists. They understand that the push by muslims to bend France to their will is the first step in the quest for shari’a. Right now it is the hijab, but already French muslims are pushing for separate swimming pools and such. It is a fundamental threat to French culture and the rise of the dreaded religious spectre over their very comfortable and liberal society.
    That, however, is not the worst part. The worst part is how the French will eventually have to solve their “muslim” problem. My guess is that when the muslims have made a big enough nuisance of themselves and are no longer content on just terrorizing French Jews or directing their anger at the US and begin to terrorize the “right kind” of Frenchmen then you will see France stripping people of their citizenship wholesale and shipping them back to Algeria whether they were born in Algeria or not. It will be unfortunate but when French finally realize that they are losing their national identity and freedoms to placate a group of religious and political fanatics bent on establishing shari’a in France and Islam worldwide they will get right down in the dirt mean and deal with it as harshly as it takes to be effective, sensitivity be damned. And the French won’t give a damn what anyone has to say about it either. That’s how it is when your very survival is at stake.

  18. Harry in Atlanta Avatar
    Harry in Atlanta

    Sorry ’bout that Jeff but I coulda swore I only hit the post button once.

  19. franky Avatar
    franky

    “but choosing to defend their oil and export interests where they know terrorists benefit from their position… Yes, they absolutely have done that”
    Eden. What about us with Saudi Arabia? 15 of 19 hijackers were from that country that has spent its huge oil bonaza that we maintained on spreading the worst form of Islam around the world, turning nationalist conflicts in to religious conflicts (Bosnia) and what did we do about it? Yep. Nothing.
    I’m no defender of France, but to say that an opposition to the Iraq war was appeasement to terrorism is both wrong and dishonest.
    Jeff, an intrinsic part of the fRench national identiy is tied up with state secularism – of course they’re not as sophistcated as us with our judges with the ten commandments emblazoned on the court walls, but if you really don’t like it, don’t live there.

  20. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    I agree with Franky, but for different reasons: The French did not cozy up to terrorists per se; rather they they have a long standing policy of encouraging “multipolarity” in world affairs. France will never in the forseeable future aspire to Great Power status, and they have known this since WWII at least. By aspiring to be the lead dog in a club of former colonies and Arab second stringers, they hope to prop up their position within the budding EU and to punch above their weight in the UN. France did not “cozy up” to Saddam, rather they viewed Saddam as a client, a reliable source of petro dollars for weapons, and later a source of illegal Oil for Food cash for their favorite banks.
    If one follows this line of reasoning, then it is plausible that the French went to bat for Saddam last year because he was their client but also they perhaps felt that they could exert pressure the other way and make Saddam behave. (The so-called “soft power” doctrine.) It has been a disasterous miscalculation for France. Not only was it dramatically shown that it could not protect its clients, but also it became evident after the war that they could not control Saddam either.
    The current hostage situation is similarly a disaster of the same sort for French foreign policy. If the hostages are killed, then it is a direct blow against French prestige and multipolar policy since it will be shown that they have no influence for all their diplomacy among their clients. If the hostages are freed, then the French are (further) exposed as appeasers and double dealers and are estranged further from the Americans, much in the same way as was the case with the Madrid bombings and Spain.
    My prediction is that the hostages will be freed, and the terrorist organizations like Muslim Brotherhood that have gone to bat for France today will score a PR victory to boot. It is evidence furthermore of the pathetically weak state to which France has sunk that the former patrons are now being patronized by terrorist organizations themselves. The headscarf issue is a red herring in the sense that the hostages can be freed now and then in a few weeks other pressures can be applied to France by conservative Muslim groups. Watch for it in the coming year, and watch the French slowly walkback from their headascarf ban, perhaps by religious segregation of schools.

  21. Kim Avatar
    Kim

    Zayed has a very interesting post up. http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
    “Basically, he is saying: My dear children, it is true that they are infidels, but we should turn the infidels against each other whenever we have the opportunity. Do not kill these two infidels, maybe another time when no one is looking”.