Via David Foster, this is an excellent video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being interviewed by a Canadian leftist:
UPDATE: More thoughts about independent-minded, outspoken Muslim women here.
34 thoughts on “Ayaan Hirsi Ali Video Interview”
Comments are closed.
What an instructive contrast!
We all know who Hirsi Ali is and of her extraordinary (and brave) life, her extraordinary intelligence and her outstanding achievements. But who was the rude, nasal-voiced interviewer? Has anyone ever heard of him? He didn’t seem able to follow Hirsi Ali’s arguments. Maybe because he was so busy thinking of the next piece of lefty boilerplate he was going to spout.
Haven’t lived in Toronto for many years, but Avi Lewis was a staple of a popular, common (and you can easily add smug, navel gazing, myopic) anti-Americanism that passes itself off as intellectually rigorous, “socially responsible,” and “socially discursive” — somehow, the Canadian Establishment (i.e., the CBC, City TV, etc) always found a way to give this guy (and others like him) a popular platform on TV with slick, hip production values. His father was heavily involved in the NDP and his mother wrote by turns angry or treacly feminist dirges for a variety of newspapers. Nothing gets the vitriol flowing like listening to his sanctimonious twaddle … and yes, he actually does believe everything he says. If you wanted a cartoonish, buffoonish character from central casting to play a hypocritical, smug, blinkered socialist, he’s your guy. You can’t make these people up … if he were in a novel or movie you just wrote, no one would take your imaginative powers seriously. pah, they’d say, humbug … go back to English Composition 101.
Hirsi Ali, on the other hand, is all the more extraordinary for not just surviving sharia and death threats but getting this kind of interrogation as her reward. Puts a new spin on the old line/canard “no good deed goes unpunished”
“After all, most Christians don’t believe in hell, in the angels or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.”
from a Spiegel Interview
Well, one out of three isn’t bad. Most Christians I know believe in hell and angels.
I have a question for you guys in the US or Canada: do your leftists feel rewarded by their (utterly false) belief that they have life as bad as people in (really) oppressed and poor countries? I find it very irritating that this Lewis guy would try to compare citizenship in the US with Somalia, or freedom in Canada with freedom in ANY Muslim country.
As we used to say in Brazil (before it was overtaken by the communists): if you like Cuba so much, why don’t you move there? Or at least stay there for 6 months…
I thought the interviewer was pretty good. He asked questions and allowed Ms. Ali to answer with little or no interruption. She adroitly (sp?) answered his questions and his statements (near the end with the crack about filling out the forms etc). She was never ruffled and he smartly played off of her comments with cliched rebuttal questions but she smoothly responded. The refreshing thing about the interview was the lack of animosity from both indivduals. He gave her an opportunity to respond beyond the standard sound-bite. He did his job well and so did she. A refreshing interview that is rarely seen on American TV.
Carl Otona – Thanks for the background on this angry individual. He has one of those whiny, nasal voices I associate with socialists who have a grudge against the world. Have you noticed? I wonder why that is. On the occasions he interrupted Hirsi Ali, he sounded like an angry hen. Perhaps because this segment laid an egg.
Also, I have a feeling that he wrote – and filmed – his introduction before he had an actual meeting with Ms Ali. He said she had been subjected to genital mutitilation as a young girl. Given that she has always refused to comment on this issue, how would he know? Did she get a chance to hear his introduction before he broadcast it? Oh! Silly me!
Interesting that no one outside Canada has ever heard of this broadcaster, yet the whole world has heard of Hirsi Ali. I noticed that he did not address a single one of her responses. She was an African immigrant to Holland, yet managed to be elected to Parliament by Dutch voters. He seems to discount this.
The left.
Val,
It appears you are focused on the interviewer instead of the interviewee. Was the purpose of the clip to generate silly responses to the host? If so, you are only feeding your own prejudices. Ms. Ali is more liberal than most liberals.
Mike – You are correct. I have seen the articulate and elegant Ms Ali interviewed many times and have read articles by her. I thought the interviewer was oustandingly ignorant and crude.
It is well accepted that Ms Ali never confirms or denies genital mutilation in her own case and this crude twerp announced in his introduction that she had suffered genital mutilation. He made an assumption and broadcast it as fact.
In addition, he asked the same old, same old questions. He hasn’t read enough about islam to ask anything new. In addition, he seemed to confuse disapproval of islam with “racism” – another lefty who conflates a religion with a race. Ms Ali had to explain the difference.
The man was an agenda-driven 10th rater, which I which I reviewed him, rather than Ms Ali, whose views are known to us and from whom he did not have the wit to elicit anything new.
Mike, you might wish to explain to the group how logical extrapolation is “feeding prejudices”.
Here, here, Val! Mr. Smith is a jerk fifty IQ points and a world of class below Ms. Ali. They could have programmed a computer to spout the blidge he subjected Ms. Ali to. (Who knows, maybe they did.) Ms. Ali condesended to him with a saintly grace and gave the Canadian viewers who were really listening to her (all twenty of them I would guess) a real education.
My bad, the interviewer/inquisitor’s last name is Lewis, not Smith. He is such a non-entity, however, the mistake is, I think, understandable. He should really be called Zero Nihil.
Aayan Hirsi Ali’s filmmaking partner, Dutch film-maker and media man Theo Van Gogh (not “Van Go”, as Lewis, in all his ignorance, pronounced it) was shot on the street in the centre of Amsterdam as he rode his bicyle, as people do. Pinned deep into his dying chest with a knife was a message to Aayan Hirsi Ali: She, an apostate, was next.
A legislator in the Dutch Parliament – having learned to speak Dutch as a refugee – she was under 24-hour protection. World famous, she couldn’t live a normal life, or a life without constant fear, for two years.
She has accepted a position at a conservative think tank in the United States and gets interviewed by an ill-informed, provincial individual who has managed get himself on Canadian TV. And laughably announces that is going to “put her on the MAP!”.
I’m not going to research this man’s show, but I don’t think it can originate in cosmopolitan Toronto, where they know what’s what and who Hirsi Ali is. And who Irshad Manji is.
For more information on Hirsi Ali unfiltered through the ignorance of a TV host, and three other interesting individuals who happen to be Western islamic women with unexpected points of view
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032006C
The interviewer does rely too heavily on anti-American cliches and so missed some good oppportunities to take on some of Ali’s more ludicrous statements, such as:
“There are no Christians who want to have the Bible replace the constitution.”
He responds by pointing to the killing of abortion doctors, which Ali quickly dismisses by correctly pointing out that the U.S. government condemns and prosecutes such attacks.
He could have taken a more realistic approach and pointed out that religious conservatives in America don’t yet support killing abortion doctors only because they’ve been kept out of power. Given a few more years of Republican presidents and the Supreme Court and/or some state legislatures may well make abortion a capital offense. He could have also cited any number of conservative pundits who routinely insist that American is a Christian nation.
Ali acknowledges this, saying: “Extremist Christians in the U.S. and any other Western nation, face the rule of law.” She contrasts that with the situation in Iran, where religious zealots are above the law. The interviewer could have pointed out that it’s the ACLU and other such organizations in the U.S. that make sure the separation of church and state remains in force against an extremely vocal, well-funded Christian zealot minority who want the Constitution to submit to Christianity.
Alas, simplistic anti-Americanism is worse for the liberal camp than it is for the conservatives.
“The interviewer could have pointed out that it’s the ACLU and other such organizations in the U.S. that make sure the separation of church and state remains in force against an extremely vocal, well-funded Christian zealot minority who want the Constitution to submit to Christianity.”
I can hear the buzz of a bee in a bonnet here.
If the islamics get their way, and God knows they are pushing hard enough, the Constitution will eventually be made to “submit to islam”. Don’t forget, islam means “submission” and CAIR is at work 24 hours a day. The non-flying imams are trying to get it made into an offence for a passenger to point out strange or suspicious behaviour by another passenger to a flight attendant or an airline official. Courtesy of CAIR.
The Christian zealots in the US are a tiny, tiny minority, however “well-funded”, which I don’t believe, by the way, they are. They will still be outvoted by the vast majority.
Islam does not recognise any authority but their allah, meaning that no muslim owes fealty to any state. And in some European countries (Holland, for example) they are breeding themselves – foolishly helped along by welfare paid by gullible citizens – into becoming a large important voting block.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is aware of the problem of islam – an aggressive, expansionist belief system – and addresses it. The amount of money militant anti-abortionists have to spend is pocket money compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars Saudi Arabia and other islamic oil states pour into the promotion of islam.
Val, you seem to be suggesting that radical Muslims are somehow a more potent force in America than radical Christians. How could that be? You may be exaggerating the strength of Islam and underplaying that of Christianity in the U.S.
Do you really believe Islamism poses a credible threat to U.S. democracy? Try as I might, I see no scenario whatsoever under which mullahs or imams could grab power in the U.S.
You note, correctly, that Christian zealots are a tiny minority in the U.S., yet you seem to be suggesting that Islamic zealots are not a tiny minority within the Islamic world, or, even, in the U.S. Radical Islamists remain a minority in every Muslim country, including Iran, I would argue, even when they may be ruled by monarchs or mullahs who promote an extreme brand of Islam.
When you blur the distinction between radical and moderate Muslims, you do bin Laden’s work for him.
Oliver Suess-Barnkey: “Val, you seem to be suggesting that radical Muslims are somehow a more potent force in America than radical Christians. How could that be? You may be exaggerating the strength of Islam and underplaying that of Christianity in the U.S.”
I couldn’t care less about your anger with Christianity, as I don’t live in the United States and I’m not American. I do, however, have faith in their Constitution.
You, on the other hand, may be underestimating the work the islamics are putting into gnawing away at the democratic structure of the West. See CAIR.
“…yet you seem to be suggesting that Islamic zealots are not a tiny minority within the Islamic world,”.
You are correct. That is what I am not just suggesting, but stating as a fact.
You write: “Radical Islamists remain a minority in every Muslim country, including Iran,”.
This is based on verbal ledgerdemain and is typical taqqya.
This is what the West has to understand: Hirsi Ali’s message. Islam cannot tolerate discussion and it cannot tolerate dissent. It is their allah’s word – courtesy mohammad, the L Ron Hubbard of his day.
To imagine that a world-renowned legislator, writer and movie-maker about islam – whose business partner was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam with a death threat to her stuck into his dying chest with a knife – a canny and skillful debater, a person who was invited to be employed by a prestigious American think tank, would be allow herself to dragged into a discussion of a provincial American issue by an ignorant Canadian TV host about abortion clinics in the US is beyond lunacy.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has not been employed by a prestigious American think tank to come to N America to discuss Christian issues and the Supreme Court, which rightly concern Americans alone.
Your confusion of your local issues with the global problem of islam tells us that we have a battle ahead.
“When you blur the distinction between radical and moderate Muslims, you do bin Laden’s work for him.”
Islam cannot be moderate. By its nature, it’s all or nothing, Until it undergoes a Reformation.
“Islam cannot be moderate. By its nature, it’s all or nothing, Until it undergoes a Reformation.”
Why, then, have so many Islamic clerics issued fatwas against bin Laden. And why has bin Laden declared war first and foremost on moderate Muslim leaders?
What you appear not to understand is that the greatest offense to a radical Muslim is that a person professing to be Muslim would not live up to the radical interpretation of the Koran. So it is that bin Laden’s stock in trade is to declare moderate Muslims to be be apostates. Val, you, are doing exactly the same thing bin Laden is.
Islam poses no credible threat whatsoever to the U.S. constitution, which mandates separation of church and state and guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and property. Islam is completely and utterly antithetical to American history, tradition and popular culture and two and half centuries of political practice. America’s culture, politics and economy are thriving, while the miserable, pathetic, hateful sub-culture of radical Islam is literally suicidal and has failed to take root anywhere, with the possible exception of Iran.
Val’s suggestion that the puny radical Islam poses a credible threat to Islam would be the heighth of anti-Americanism were it not so transparently preposterous. What are his motives?
Make that:
Val’s suggestion that the puny radical Islam poses a credible threat to America would be the heighth of anti-Americanism were it not so transparently preposterous. What are his motives?
Though I would stand as well by the point that moderate Islam is steadily crushing the violent extremists in its midst. If you look for the evidence, you will find it. If you don’t, it can only mean you aren’t looking.
If you look for the evidence, you will find it. If you don’t, it can only mean you aren’t looking.
Let’s see. You won’t admit the possibility that your perception of events could be wrong. You ignore the fact that we are fighting radical Islamists even now (i.e., they are a threat). And you want others to accept your assertion that their perception of radical Islam as dangerous is preposterous. Oh yes, it’s the Christian extremists, who might, conceivably, in the future try to impose their views on the rest of us (never mind how they would do this in a democratic country where most people do not agree with them) who are a threat, not the Islamists who are currently fighting us. Why should anyone accept your argument? All you do is make assertions and taunt people who disagree.
“Val, you, are doing exactly the same thing bin Laden is.” Someone else above said I was doing bin Laden’s work for him. I am getting tired of this ignorant little mantra (with apologies to Hindus for using one of their very nice words).
You do understand, do you not, Tweed, that there are several sects within Islam and they often disagree with one another on minor points.
Tweed writes: “Val’s suggestion that the puny radical Islam poses a credible threat to Islam would be the heighth of anti-Americanism were it not so transparently preposterous. What are his motives?” Even allowing for a mistyping, I proposed absolutely no such thing and would not. I have always been an admirer of the US Constitution and wished we had one of our own.
The US Constitution is no more vulnerable to islam – although CAIR would wish it otherwise – than does the bee in your bonnet, fundamental Christianity, which you fear will “force the Constitution to submit to Christianity”. I would suggest that it is you are a little over-imaginative and alarmist.
You then write: “Though I would stand as well by the point that moderate Islam is steadily crushing the violent extremists in its midst.”
Evidence, please. And the first evidence I want to see is that there is such a thing as the dreamy “moderate islam” that so many of the left keep quoting. Some examples, if you please.
There are a few – very, very few indeed – thoughtful muslims who want to see islam have a Reform – Irshad Manji is one of them – but in the main, this is a pipe dream of leftist and horrendously naive Westerners. Perhaps some day the Irshad Manjis of the world will prevail, but it will be many, many years from now. Perhaps even many lifetimes – unless it is forced on them by the West.
Tweed, you need to understand that islam is a fascist religion. It believes its diety is paramount and that everyone born owes it fealty. People who absolutely refuse to be converted (or ‘reverted’ as the islamics say because you were, after all, born a muslim)can enter the Dhimmitude – a community of people who are complicit in their own inferiority to every muslim alive, who step off the pavement when a muslim passes, who give up their place in line without argument so a muslim can precede them, who are only allowed to wear shoes at the pleasure of some local imam, and who pay a special tax – the jizyah – to be allowed to continue living. See, they’ve formalised your inferiority.
Please educate yourself before zapping off silly accusations that people who know the facts are somehow “doing bin Laden’s work for him”. And by the way, stop focussing on the poster boy. There are tens of thousands of other muslims working on expanding shariah to be the supreme law in civilised countries.
Start with these, Val.
all links found at: http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Muslim Leaders
A Message from the Council on American-Islamic Relations
American Muslim Leaders Condemn Attacks
American Muslims Denouncing Terrorism
American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism on Anniversary of 9/11
Australian Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attack
Bin Laden Distorts Islam, Islamic Scholars Say
Bin Laden’s Idea of ‘Jihad’ is Out of Bounds, Islamic Scholars Say
British Muslim leaders condemn terrorism
British Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
Canadian Muslims Condemn Terorist Attacks
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders
Islamic World Deplores U.S. Losses
Looking for Answers in Islam’s Holy Book: What Islamic Scholars Have to Say
Muslim Reactions to Sept 11
[very long list of similar links deleted by admin]
One wonders if immigration and visa allowances are taking into consideration the “general” corrosive dangers of large groups of Muslims in a liberal society and therefore limiting the number of these people allowed in the US.
No doubt the congress and the State Dept. are not viewing things in this way – and so not looking out for the welfare of Americans – again. Politically correct non-leadership, and igonrance….so what else is new?
Tyouth: What sort of numbers of Muslims are you imagining it would take to occassion “general corrosive dangers?”
I tend to think American culture along with the people and the powerhouse economy are not likely to be significantly corroded by a philosophy that is so utterly alien to it.
Free speech, free thought, a stable, thriving economy and separation of church state have given America great immunity from totalitarian ideas for 200 years. What makes you think that’s about to change?
America rejected the far more subtle, culturally decorous practice of communism, which never gained more than a tiny fringe of supporters here. Islamic extremism is by far a less naturally appealing way of life for Americans. I have yet to see even a single example of Islamic extremism “corroding” America or its values. I can’t imagine that it ever would, no matter how many Muslims might make their way here.
Val writes:
“The US Constitution is no more vulnerable to islam – although CAIR would wish it otherwise – than does the bee in your bonnet, fundamental Christianity, which you fear will “force the Constitution to submit to Christianity” [sic]. I would suggest that it is you are a little over-imaginative and alarmist.”
You’re mistaken, Val. I believe that fundamentalist Christianity poses no credible threat to the Constituation. My point was simply that that’s a more likely scenario than Muslim extremists doing so. To illustrate by example: Dennis Kucinich has a better chance of winning the 2008 presidential election than does Pervez Mushareff. Yet Kucinich has no credible chance of winning.
Val writes: “The first evidence I want to see is that there is such a thing as the dreamy “moderate islam.” ”
Well, Oliver provided scores of examples, but I could also name the leaders of Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Jordan and Indonesia. Each of these key Muslim states–combined accounting for most of the Islamic world–are led by people who have shed great amounts of blood and treasure fighting Islamic extremists. Yet there, every one of theme, are Muslims. Surely you’d agree they are moderates by any reasonable definition of the word.
I would challenge you, Val, to provide evidence that the extremist interpretation of Islam is attractive to majority Muslims.
Val writes: “Perhaps some day the Irshad Manjis of the world will prevail, but it will be many, many years from now. Perhaps even many lifetimes – unless it is forced on them by the West.”
That’s interesting. How would the U.S. go about forcing moderation? If your point is that the U.S. needs to support the leaders of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Indonesia in their battle against extremists, you are absolutely correct. You may want to rethink your formulation about “forcing” Muslims to become moderate. Government force, especially foreign government force, ALWAYS radicalizes, rather than moderates. In cases of self-defense, there is no other choice. But as a way to bring about social change, government force consistently fails.
Jonathan writes:
“Let’s see. You won’t admit the possibility that your perception of events could be wrong.”
No, Jonathan, my perceptions could well be wrong. Why do you think I chose to present them in a forum like this? If I just wanted edification, there are certainly many better places to find it. I welcome your dissent. Hammer away. Just don’t get upset or resort to ad hominem when I hammer back.
Jonathan writes:
“You ignore the fact that we are fighting radical Islamists even now (i.e., they are a threat).”
I never said anything like that. You’re misrepresenting my comments, which merely point out that radical Islam poses no CREDIBLE existential threat the U.S. Try as I might, I can’t imagine a scenario in which mullahs sweep to power in New York, Los Angeles and Seattle, let alone Chicago, either by the barrel of a gun or the ballot box.
Jonathan writes:
“And you want others to accept your assertion that their perception of radical Islam as dangerous is preposterous.”
Now you’re making a strawman. Of course radical Islam is dangerous. It’s a very serious intelligence and law enforcement challenge that we’ll be dealing with for a very long time–I’d bet throughout our lifetimes. But it poses no existential threat to the U.S. It’s far, far to puny in every way–ideologically, militarily, culturally, even religiously, certainly spiritually. It’s a desperate, divided, suicidal movement that relies in no small part on clinically insane functionaries–do you really mean to argue that that’s a formula for success?
Jonathan writes:
“Oh yes, it’s the Christian extremists, who might, conceivably, in the future try to impose their views on the rest of us (never mind how they would do this in a democratic country where most people do not agree with them) who are a threat, not the Islamists who are currently fighting us.”
Another strawman/misrepresentation. I didn’t say Christian extremists, not Islamic extremists, were TRYING to impose their views. Of course BOTH groups are. They wouldn’t be extremist if they weren’t. My point was simply that Christian extremists have a far more appealing program–in terms of its relative compatibility with American culture, institutions and political traditions. Think of it this way, Jonathan, are you now arguing that radical Islam is MORE APPEALING to Americans than radical Christianity? Surely you agree the opposite. And if Christian extremism is more appealing, it’s only rational that it’s a more credible threat.
Islamic extremism is rejected everywhere it’s offered, save for the most desperately impoverished–economically, politically and spiritually–countries. To assert that it presents a credible existential threat to American freedom requires an assertion that America’s economic, political and spiritual strength is somehow as lacking as those countries that have partially tolerated Islamic extremism. What could be more anti-American than that?
Need an enemy? Try China. Now there’s a credible existential threat.
Oliver Suess-Barnkey who provided scores of examples off a muslim propaganda site – sorry, I don’t have the time.
I would agree with you that King Abdullah and Queen Rania of Jordan are moderate – so far as we know. As was his father, King Hussein. But they are exceptions. Yes, Indonesia has had pancacila written into its Constitution and seems to abide by it. We will see. Islamics are making life miserable for the people in southern Thailand and the Philippines, and even Malaysia, such a bright light of moderation and tolerance is showing signs of becoming more restrictive of the behaviour of non-muslims – 40% of the population.
I agree with Tweed that islam (I will not modify it by writing “radical islam” because islam is a radical system whether you want to believe it or not) does not pose a real danger to the United States. One reason is the strengthof the US Constitution, which is one of the most valuable documents ever devised by man.
But the US was foolish and ignorant enough as a nation to allow Keith Ellison to “swear” his oath on the koran. That means exactly diddley. A basic tenet – not a belief by one sect or another, but a basic tenet of the whole belief system is, one can swear a lie on the koran if it is in the furtherance of the spread of islam.
Ellison has sworn exactly nothing and every muslim in the US and the world is aware of that.
I do nevertheless believe the US is under no danger. Europe and Britain, however, are. At last count, 41% of islamics polled in Britain said they actively want shariah law applied in our country. Bear in mind that that 41% accounts for the people who didn’t think quickly enough to say, “Don’t know”.
There will be a grave and dangerous power grab, I would say, in around 30 years.
To say that China is a threat is naive and ludicrous.
Tweed, I acknowledge that you believe that radical Islam is not a grave threat to the West. However, the fact that you believe this does not make it so, and I do not agree with your assessment. I think that there is a significant risk that westerners, out of distraction, misunderstanding or demoralization, will not effectively defend their values and institutions against the pressures of Islamist subversives, who make up with determination for what they lack in subtlety. I don’t know what the odds are, but to dismiss the Islamist threat as you do seems to me to reflect a failure of imagination on your part.
Readers of this thread can judge for themselves whether I have made straw-man arguments and misrepresented you, as you claim.
I would support what Jonathan writes.
Although I personally do not think the United States is in grave danger, as are Britain and Europe, there are nevertheless signs that islam is on the march there, too. The taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport are a case in point. If their “religion” forbids them from having dogs or alcohol in their cabs, then they are not qualified to ply as cab drivers. End of story. But, out of fear of offending, Minneapolis Airport has made special rules for them. This is insane. Travellers do not leave Minneapolis Airport at the pleasure of islamic cab drivers.
The flying imams are another case in point. They are now meandering their way through the courts to try to get it made an offence for passengers to point out odd behaviour – as in thin people asking for an extended seatbelt – to airline or airport officials.
The islamics in Dearborne, MI have managed to get their islamic calls to prayer broadcast through public speakers five times a day – thankfully in Arabic so it probably impinges less on the consciousness – using the argument that it was no different from church bells.
They are sly and determined.
There is the case of a junior high school in California – and also one somewhere else, if I remember correctly, that inexplicably began giving lessons in Ramadan and having American children choose a muslim name for themselves for the duration and learn a little prayer in Arabic. Parents became alarmed and sued to get it stopped, many fearing that the Arabic their children had been required to chant may have been a conversion to islam.
If a Christian or Jewish teachers had tried to ram their religion down students’ throats during a religious festival, I think we know where the case would have ended up.
A US population steeped in Anglosphere values has nothing to fear from Islamism. A US population indoctrinated in multicultural PC, however, is vulnerable. I think that we are probably strong enough to resist the Islamists ideologically and will eventually do so with great force. However, I may be wrong, and the stakes are so high that I think we should be very cautious about discounting risks whose magnitude we cannot easily assess. The incidents with the flying imams, the cabdrivers, the PC schools — these may mean nothing in the long run. But we can’t know that yet, so we should treat these events as possible indications of weakness on our side or as probes by our enemies. Overconfidence is dangerous.
Note: I’ve truncated one comment from the “Tweed”/”Suess-Barnkey” troll and deleted quite a few others, in the hope that the original discussion here might be salvaged.
I really enjoyed seeing her speak. She is eloquent and seems to know her facts. I couldn’t help feel proud of the interviewer though. After watching Bill O’Reilly on FOX NEWS interview people and CONSTANTLY interrupt people, it is so different to see someone interviewing a person they disagree with but also allow them time to finish their thoughts. Kudos to Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her views, and kudos to David Foster for being polite enough to let her be heard.