|
MUSLIM BITES DOG By Ann Coulter
| I used to like Ann Coulter. I now view her the same way I view Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell: while she's not a leftist moonbat, she's most certainly an idiotarian. My comments added at 11 am CST. |
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
| Was that a result of their religion, or a recognition that in their country and present culture, there was no other way to get justice? In the U.S., we get a grand jury empaneled and hire some junk-yard lawyers to get justice after a tragedy like this. Remind us how that works in Egypt, Ms. Coulter. Right -- it doesn't. Tell you what, as a mild-mannered Catholic, I also might have rioted against the shipping company if there was no other way to get justice. Then again, I might pick up a rifle. |
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.
So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
| Most Muslims did, Ann. Didya notice that? Muslims across America handled the cartoons the same way I handled 'Piss Christ' when the that first came out. I was mighty unhappy that a dumb-assed 'artist' took an object I consider holy and dunked it into a jug o' urine, and I said so at the time. I didn't riot over it. Likewise, my Muslim friends here at the University have been unhappy about their holy man being portrayed in unflattering ways, and they said so -- calmly. We didn't have any riots in Chicago. |
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint. Where's the justice here?
Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.
No, we don't want to bomb Syria back to the stone age, any more than we bombed Iraq back to the stone age (Iraq was practically in the stone age due to Saddam, Uday and Qusay looting the country blind; that's different). We want Pencilneck gone and his thugocracy dismantled, but we have nothing against the Syrian people. Mostly.
Furthermore, there's no 'butt-kissing' of Muslims by the more critical parts of our power structure -- I say that recognizing that some Rantburg citizens will disagree with me. GWB, Condi, Rummy et al have had this right all along: we're not going after Muslims or Islam, we're going after those who use and pervert that religion for their own nasty political ends. I don't have any problems with peaceful Muslims, though I wish more of them would get on the same side as us. I have big problems with the ones who want to build a caliphate, kill all the Jooos, and make me and my family dhimmis. The solution isn't mindless violence, it's targeted violence against evil people.
When stupid people riot, you bring out the water cannons and the baton-swinging police to restore order. But you don't indict an entire religion for the rubes amongst them. The key is to get at what's going on behind the scenes. What we have in the Middle East today is a long-term, careful-conceived plan by several different groups, including al-Q and the Mad Mullahs™, to remove the West from world power and replace us with a caliphate. Each group plans to be the one wearing the bejeweled turban, and each is antagonistic towards the others plotters as well as towards us. That's the story. Ann surely knows that, but she doesn't write about it, because that would require calm logic and reasoning, and she doesn't do calm. |
The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
| That's called 'slander' Ms. Coulter. As far as I know, none of the three have done that. I think Ted Rall is slime (that's not slander, that's an opinion), and I have a similar low regard for Mr. Trudeau and for the NYT. But none of the three have entered this idiot contest, so Ms. Coulter is just playing to the cheap seats. It's not necessary and it brings her down to the level of Mr. Rall -- not that she has far to go these days. |
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb?
If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
| Oh, har-har. Like I said, she doesn't have far at all to go to be indistinguishable from Ted Rall. |
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up!
Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack -- the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support."
We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.
| If the Danes ask us to do so -- that's a quirk of 'Article V' of the NATO constitution that somehow has eluded Ms. Coulter. And, something else Ms. Coulter misses, if it's smartest, best way to respond. Burning an embassy is an act of war, but you don't necessarily respond to it by bombing a country 'back to the stone age'. If Saddam had burned a Western embassy, we would have bombed him -- in fact, we did anyway. But what we want is for Pencilneck to go, and we have a plan in place to get that done without losing other things that we also consider valuable to us. That's called 'strategy', a concept on which Ms. Coulter is clueless. |
Or is NATO -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
It's easy to toss rhetorical bombs around when you don't have to put your own ass on the line. It happens at most blogs (us included) from time to time. We're smart enough to understand that, as do most other commentators at most reasonable blogs, newspapers, etc. It isn't clear to me that Ms. Coulter is that smart. If she is, she hides it well.
War is a serious business, Ann: people die. Good people die, including your own soldiers, people you truly care about. You don't go to war to prove how macho you are, and you don't do it on a whim. You go to war when you're faced with certain choices in which war is the least unappealing. We went to war with the Taliban because the other choice, leaving them in place and leaving their country as a giant training camp for al-Q, was utterly unacceptable. Ditto Iraq: no way could we let Saddam slip past sanctions, develop new weapons, threaten all our friends in the region and arm terrorists. So we went to war. In the process we've lost a couple thousand smart, wonderful men and women in uniform. Is it worth it? Yes. Hell yes.
But that doesn't mean we go to war to prove to anyone that we have big brass ones.
Ann Coulter has become trapped by her persona: she thinks she has to say outrageous stuff to make her point, and over time she has to become more outrageous to continue to be noticed. She's been over the line frequently in her attention-seeking behavior, and this piece of tripe is one more example of that. Feh. |
Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-02-16 |
