"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
2007-02-22 05:43:29 · 22 answers · asked by Ethan A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am really no fan of Ann Coulter, but I think a little perspective is in need here. The comment was taken out of context. Read the entire article. First of all, this was written on September 11, 2001 and published the next day. She lost a close friend and colleague in the Pentagon flight. If she was angry, she had a right to be, as did we all. (I believed then, and I believe now, that 9/11 was not a crime against the US, but a crime against humanity.)
Like many others at the time, Ann Coulter was advocating war, not continuing on the course of diplomacy, negotiation and appeasement. Also, she was advocating (wisely, in my opinion) that this should not be treated as a "crime," where the criminals are caught and taken to prison and that is the end of it until another "crime" occurs. She was saying that this was an act of war and should be treated as such.
She was making the point that, when we go to war, we go to war against entire countries, not just certain individuals. For example, when we went to war against Germany, we didn't just go after Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels. We wasted civilians by the tens of thousands, not because we wanted to, but because their own leaders forced us to.
Remember the quote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
In WW II, we did exactly that. We invaded their countries. We killed their leaders. And we did all we could to convert their people away from the ideologies that caused the mess in the first place.
Coulter was only advocating that we take the same approach today that we did in WW II. She didn't mean convert to Christianity in the literal sense; she meant, more precisely, convert them away from their militant, murderous Muslim ideology to something more peaceful, for example, Christianity. (Obviously, Christianity has its own violent past, but it pales in comparison to modern militant Islam.)
Was her rhetoric incendiary? Yes. Out of line? Maybe. But again, consider the context. Most of us shared the same feelings on September 11, 2001. We wanted not just the individual hijackers and support teams brought to justice, but also the world governments that created them. Many of us still do.
2007-02-23 04:01:17 · answer #1 · answered by Martin L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Coulter desires to kill the sadistic dictators and convert the folk. Radical Muslims prefer to slit all of our throats if we don't convert to Islam. So no, that is no longer a similar. to no longer point out Coulter is a professional satirist on a similar time as the Islamofacists mean precisely what they say. i'm no longer an Ann Coulter fan nor have I study any of her books, yet i do no longer think of she's as evil as liberals say she is.
2016-11-25 00:09:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. Radical Islam is on the upswing, and it's tenets under Sharia law limit individual human rights, treating women much like livestock. They covet jihad above all else, believing that death is preferable to life. They strap bombs on their children so they can be idolized as Martyrs by rabid masses. They believe Jews and other "infidels" such as Christians need to be converted or put to death. Such beliefs should promote outrage from Liberals but instead they spit on Christianity and Judaism, either from habit or fear of Islam. They would be the first to die under Islam if they dared speak out against their country as they do so frequently against the USA.
I must ask you, were we transported back in time and Anne Coulter said we needed to kill the Nazi leaders, would you have a problem with that?
2007-02-22 05:53:50 · answer #3 · answered by Eric K 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't see a problem maybe with the convert to Christianity thing.
I got no prob with carpet bombing the entire middle east back a few yrs to the stone age
2007-02-22 05:49:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I fail to see anything wrong with it whatsoever. If it's simply a matter of bellicosity which has you shaken, it might serve you well to remember that column was published on September 12, 2001. If you weren't equally angry, you were in the tiny minority.
2007-02-22 05:50:53 · answer #5 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why be outraged? The Muslim community want to do just the opposite to us!
2007-02-22 06:24:05 · answer #6 · answered by jonn449 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah. Us normal people understand Coulter and know when she's saying something to get liberals all fired up, and when she's actually advocating for something.
Plus, this was what, like 6 years ago now?
2007-02-22 05:48:01 · answer #7 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Who cares about anything she has ever said at any time? She is just a big ol joke- so, enjoy your life and laugh out loud!!
2007-02-22 06:20:43 · answer #8 · answered by Mz. X 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to admit the check-in procedures are a bit ridiculous.
The rest is pretty much over the top, but I'm not outraged by it.
2007-02-22 05:51:44 · answer #9 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The best thing about Ann Coulter is that she's a chain smoker. Every day brings us all exponentially closer to a world free of that psycho whack job wingnut. btw, does anyone seriously believe she'd be listened to if she wasn't shaking that tight little moneymaker of hers?
2007-02-22 05:50:39 · answer #10 · answered by wineboy 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋