Posted on 10/01/2001 10:00:14 PM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Ann's column was caustic, as well it should have been after witnessing the slaughter at World Trade. Has NRO forgotten the atrocity already? We are in pain, Jonah. Anything less than Ann's immoderate comments are offensive in the extreme to me.
"Invade" and "kill" imply force, wouldn't you agree? "Convert" appears in the same sentence. Like it or not, the implication is clear. To paraphrase a freeper from another thread, its not as if she suggested inviting them to a Promise Keeper's convention.
Oh, yeah. That must be it. There's nothing that William F Buckley covets more than the respect of leftists.
Or, MAYBE, Ann is a few clowns short of a circus.
:
Not exactly. Maher said "we" have been the cowards -- we clearly meaning the government (and in this case, Clinton's administration). As for Coulter, you're understating a little bit, aren't you? "Christianity to be spread" sounds like what Mother Teresa was going; Coulter wants blood.
I'm not anti-Christian, just anti-"my God is better than your God and so you must convert or die" nonsense.
We could easily convert them to ashes. But then we might hurt some "innocent" person. Are there any innocent people in that country?
I see where you got your nickname. I like Ann's assault on liberalism, but nobody is always wrong and nobody is always right. Ann screwed up plain and simple and instead of being contrite like ahole Mare, she got PMS. National Review was around espousing conservative causes before she was born. Too many people around here see everything and every person as pure black and white.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
This is the basic formula the U.S. used against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in World War II. It worked well. The miracle of modern Germany and Japan are the results.
Howard Kurtz's jaw dropped because he does not have the imagination or the courage to face this reality and because he is so thoroughly suffused with the decadent "Liberal" PC paradigm. To venture beyond it is unthinkable.This can be said of anyone whose jaw drops at Coulter's statement.
Anyone who thinks this through will realize that this is exactly what the Islamic terrorists intend to do to us--i.e. invade our countries, kill our leaders, and convert us to Islam or kill us--they have said so.
We are at war.
Ann Coulter stated the obvious.
This is also the basic formula used by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to cleanse Spain of Islam. It worked well then too.
The implementation of Ann Coulter's advice would be the best thing that could happen to the benighted people of the Islamic theocracies.
Once conquered and converted, they could look forward to following the examples of contemporary Japan and Germany--though even greater advantages would come to them, notably freedom from Islam, the sole stiffling effects of "submission", and its ridiculous and false beliefs and teachings.
"Coulter accused National Review of having "censored" her "
Johah Goldberg is right. It's editorial judgment, not censorship.
"New York Times columnist Frank Rich said she was fueling 'hysteria on the right. "
We are at war, Fools! We have been attacked! Are your heads so far up there that you don't even know that?
"Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam called her a 'right-wing telebimbo.'"
And that's the best he could do. He was unable to refute what she had said.
"Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Tom Brazaitis accused her of 'bloodthirsty rhetoric.'"
This is War, man! Not a garden party! Get the rocks out of your head!
"I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."
In case anyone hadn't noticed, many people in the Islamic theocracies celebrated the September 11 massacre. News reporters were actively prevented from filming and reporting on these celebrations.
Does anyone think these people would not do to us what Coulter suggests we do to them?
Does anyone think that these blood-thirsty and misguided people would not be better off if Coulter's advice were followed?
Does anyone seriously think that we should not invade the lands where these celebrations took place, kill leaders who support terrorist acts against America, and convert these celebrants to Christianity--which is infinitely superior to what they have now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.