[OWK]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,"
--Ann Coulter

You can rationalize it if you want...

Have at it.

[Texaggie79]

I would agree more with "Invade their countries and kill their leaders." After that, missionaries would not be killed for teaching the good news.

[NeoCaveman]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,"
--Ann Coulter

I'll give Ann this, she is more concerned about their souls than I am.
Bombs away!!!

[Roscoe]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,"

force them to convert to Christianity at gunpoint just like good old Ann said we should.

Just as dishonest as before.

[Dumb_Ox]

If you would clarify something for a misguided semi-defender: what precisely is the problem with advocating the conversion of Afghanis to one's own religion? It's not as though they even have the option right now.

I can't escape the feeling that Ann violated the basic taboo of American secularism: evangelizing bad, indifferentism good.

[Iwo Jima]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," --Ann Coulter You can rationalize it if you want... "

It was a joke, for crying out loud! Can't you see that? I laughed my head off when I read it. So did others to whom I read it. Are you all so dense that Ann has to resort to "J.K.!" (teenage girl talk for "just kidding").

Someone will always publish Ann, and I will always read her. It seems clear to me that Jonah Goldberg was just insecure around Ann and looking for a pretext to oust her.

I have read columns by Jonah in the past which I enjoyed, but he has been a stale, spent force for months now. Ann always manages to stay fresh. He really couldn't afford to let her stay around.

[ExpandNATO]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," --Ann Coulter

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"