Posted on 10/02/2001 9:14:04 AM PDT by truthandlife
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, fired from her contributing editor perch at the National Review Online, blames it on free-speech hysteria in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. In a recent online column, Coulter opined that the United States should respond forcefully to the terrorist attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," she said. The comment provoked an uproar, and the National Review Online subsequently refused to run another Coulter piece in which she referred to "swarthy males." When Coulter complained, she was fired. Tuesday's Washington Post quotes Coulter as saying she doesn't need friends like that. "Every once in awhile they'll throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications," she told the newspaper. National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg told the Post, "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." Coulter told the Washington Post she's getting great publicity as a result of the flap.
She said something pretty damned funny.
I would worry if GW were saying it.
You can rationalize it if you want...
I assume I do not have to detail the many, many terrorist groups and their sponsors, including, but not limited to Libya, Lebanon-Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, etc. To remove those governments we will need to invade those countries either directly or by sponsoring and then supporting coups. Killing those leaders and their secret police, ruling parties and informer networks would be an excellent object lesson about what happens to those enemies of the United States that decide to commit terror attacks in the United States.
To mention one very concrete example, Gadaffi of Libya still owes us and Great Britain for the 747 bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland. Unless of course, you are happy with the farcical trial of two lackeys.
That should take care of "invade" and "kill".
The RAND Corporation did a statistical study titled "Why Nations Arm" and found some very significant correlations. Three significant factors correlating with low levels of arms were English speaking, Anglo-Saxon origin and Christian. The factors predicting high levels were Marxism and Islam.
Furthermore, terrorism like that of September 11 is the province of Marxism/Communism and Islamism. This would also include N. Ireland, where the IRA is a prime example of Marxism at work (insight courtesy of National Review in its better days). And older Irish terrorists are in violation of Christian Just War principles which rather clearly state that if terror against civilians is your only military option then you have NO right to take up arms.
While forced conversion is theologically problematic (which did not prevent my ancestors from being converted by the sword), we could certainly enforce the demands that Christian missionaries be allowed to operate freely, that Christians not be harrassed, killed or robbed in Muslim lands (finally accomplishing one of the goals of the original Crusades), that converts to Christianity from Islam not be executed
Takes care of "convert"
I vote for conscious hyperbole to make a point.
But the barbarians among us will take it literally because it allows them to strut their milimeter thick "intellectualism" and moral superiority.
As a matter of fact, yes. Our objective is to destroy as much as possible the capability of any further terror attacks against us. What happens to the country afterwards should not be our concern, except to assure that the same weed does not grow again. I have no interest in "nation building".
I think that OWK would be willing to set you straight on that one :-)
We've been doing this since long before you showed up here ( and at other sites too).
How well does his brother know him?
You'll note that it was published on 9/13. 9/13! Do you know anything about deadlines?? This column was written in a hurry, and like I said earlier, Ann showed admirable restraint under the circumstances! Okay, Jonah may have been a "pal" of Barbara's, but in all reality, there is a vast difference between male-and-female pals and close, personal "girlfriends." (No sexual-persuasion jokes, if you please, because that is NOT what I am getting at here. And I promise you, if any crop up, I will not be as polite as I'm being now!)
Remember when King David of Israel brought the ark of God's presence back to Jerusalem, The Bible says that during the time that God's Presence was there and being celebrated and praised, that there was no war, no poverty, no sickness, and even the non-Hebrew people were blessed because of it. It is the same way here in America. Maybe, you are'nt a christian, but it is because Jesus is Lord over America that you enjoy this countries God given blessings and creativity.
It is, isn't it? But, oh so un-PC!
And your solution to this is to forcibly convert them to Christianity? What body parts do you plan to sever should they fail to comply?
I read the article when it was first written. It was not satire.
She never said anything that suggests forbidding them the choice, either.
Physicist: I somehow don't get the impression that she's inviting them to a Promise Keeper's rally and hoping they'll see the light.
But do you really expect Coulter advocates the US Army Chaplain corps preaching to an audience of captive Taliban? The words used, "impression, suggestion.." reveal the extremely subjective nature of interpreting things. Following the Principle of Charity, I will give the benefit of the doubt to Coulter until she proves herself unworthy of such benefit. It's not as though she's in the streets chanting "Death to the infidel!" and making Xena-ululations.
She might, if she believed her usual audience are third graders.
It's not a more foolish comment than what Jonah wrote about Africa, nor is it more foolish or foolhardy than what many others are writing in the National Review, the New Republic or the Weekly Standard or from the other side in the Nation or antiwar.com or lewrockwell.com. I don't buy the argument that Jonah's imperialist chatter about Africa is designed to "help" them, while Coulter's militant broadside is in favor of "hurting" or punishing Muslims. But her statement could be regarded as offensive by many. Supposedly the Crusades were associated with mass butchery. I don't know how true this is, but the association exists and we could find out more about it. It's clear that she doesn't advocate forced conversions, let alone massacres, but the context is troubling.
I think NR let her column go, not because her views were so different from hers, but because of the similarities. They've gone out on a limb in favor of the maximalist view of the war. Dropping Coulter's column makes them appear to be more "moderate" and "responsible" while they satisfy the neocon faction with their other "let's roll, guns blazing and overthrow governments" opinionists.
Nobody come out of this with any credit. Ann Coulter will land on her feet, unless she has self-destructive tendencies. National Review looks to be in more trouble. Will they ever publish the kind of "think pieces" they once did? Probably not, since that kind of seriousness was a product of the Cold War, and what came afterwards looks a lot like yuppie materialism. Perhaps this new conflict will bring back some of that moral seriousness, but that's yet to be seen.
That would be their problem now, wouldn't it.
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.