Ann Coulter proposes a new "post-9/11 rule":
“Rag-head talks tough, rag-head faces consequences.”
That will be all on her.
UPDATE: I should say I’m about 95 percent sure on that "thunderous" in the quote above. But I wrote it down quickly. People have audio of the speech, but no one’s posted it yet (that I know of). Doesn’t affect the gist of things much, though, does it?
UPDATE 2: People who have reviewed the audio tell me the word "thunderous" was not there. Quote amended at the top. My apologies. The beauty of the blogosphere…
Oh my gosh, did she really hurt their feelings like that. They will probably cut her head off for something like that but they cut heads off unarmed people all the time don’t they. Don’t get the vapors, just take a deep breath and be a Dhemmi and they might spare you.
“Oh my gosh, did she really hurt their feelings like that. They will probably cut her head off for something like that but they cut heads off unarmed people all the time don’t they. Don’t get the vapors, just take a deep breath and be a Dhemmi and they might spare you.”
Well, in addition to Ann Coulter, it looks like Ron is a douche-bag too. I think it’s sad that people think that if we don’t call people racial slurs, then the terrorists are winning. Isn’t is possible to be tough on terrorists and not insult entire races?
Ann is 100% correct. It is very clear what she means by that phrase. They want the West to surrender to Allah and their rule. The War for our freedom has started.
Er … why do you assume that “ragheads” simply means all Muslims? Is that how you interpret the term? Could it not - and reasonably, in context of what is going on around the world - refer to intolerant, violent, homicidal Muslims only?
“Raghead” is not a racial slur; it is, at worst, a RELIGIOUS slur. If you think “turban” = “Arab”, YOU are a racist. If you think “Arab” = “Muslim”, you are a racist.
And actually, the Iranians, one of the more important groups that we have issues with right now, aren’t Arabs, they’re Persians. And they’re largely Muslim, too.
“Raghead” is generally used in disparaging remarks against extremist Islamic groups.
Calling that “racists” is like calling anti-illegal immigration “racist” - there are many races involved in both activities, and there are many of those races who are NOT involved in those activities. To equate activity- or faith-based groups with race IS RACIST ON YOUR PART.
I think it’s important to note that the koran calls for the murder of all infidels (or non-muslims).
“Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully…” (47:4).
“O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him” (9:123).
“O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make “jihad”) against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them…” (66:73).
Sura 5, verse 85 prophesies an inevitable conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers [Muslims] wilt thou find the Jews and pagans.”
Sura 9, verse 5 states: “Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war.”
Sura 5:51 states: “O ye who believe [Muslims] take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you who turns to them [for friendship] is of them.” The message is clear. If you accept a Jew or a Christian as a friend, you are not one of us. If you’re not one of us you’re an infidel.
Islamic fundamentalists believe the Koran commands them to fight Christians and Jews: “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the last day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and his messenger [Mohammed] and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth [Islam] among the people of the scripture [Christians and Jews] until they pay the Jazyah [a special high tax to be paid only by Christians and Jews who do not renounce their faith and convert to Islam] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Surat At-Taubah 9:29)
It’s time that we wake up and realize that this is a war against Islam, not just radical Islam, but the religion as a whole.
Sure, there will be those who say we don’t take those verses literally, but do you want to bet your life or the lives of your family on whether or not they’re telling the truth? I don’t
So “wetbacks” only refers to illegal immigrants?
The comments on this blog are sickening. And you wonder why the liberals call us all a bunch of racist bigots. Some of you idiots are proving them right.
Some asshead (a.k.a. ron nord) whines: “Isn’t is possible to be tough on terrorists and not insult entire races?”…
No! You dreadful pansey…
Anyone and everyone not lifting a hand against the terrorist towel heads and their families, their farm animals and so forth should be shot for being a wimped out, seditious swine…
The righty ’sphere is going wild over this latest eruption from Ann. The objections seem to follow two different paths. Some oppose what she said on moral grounds, basically on the theory that there is never cause to refer to an entire people as “ragheads.” The defense, if there is one, is that the term is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, which means that by its imprecision it is not a slur. But that seems like a frail reed.
The other objection is purely utilitarian — that it hurts the conservative cause, in the sense of giving it a bad name. What with all the creeping nativism among conservatives, that seems like a real risk.
Speaking of risks, much of this outrage seems a bit contrived, as if to immunize conservatives from the pending explosion of outrage in the MSM. Ann has always said inflammatory things on purpose. Every now and then she steps over whatever edge we imagine exists. People watch Ann speak almost hoping that this will happen — sort of like watching baseball hoping for a bench-clearing brawl. The people who invited her to speak at a high-profile gathering of conservatives surely knew this.
Jim,
You may want to tell the over a billion Muslims who live decent lives without focusing on achieving al Qaeda’s political aims they’ve been interpreting their religous text wrong. And that their acceptance of both the Old and New Testaments as Good Books is wrong.
And those verses refer to the various tribes of the area way back when.
3:3 talks about believers in Yahweh or Allah.
Oh, and a war against Islam would bankrupt civilization, and probably end with the demise of you and your family.
>>”Raghead” is generally used in disparaging remarks against extremist Islamic groups.
Get over it. Islam is waging war on the west. If you cringe in fear at the the thought of the epithet “raghead” I can only imagine what will make you shudder when sharia comes knocking at the door. We called the Japanese Nips and the Germans Krauts. So what.
I just tossed my copy of “Treason” in the garbage can. Never did like the way the woman expressed herself, but thought there was some value in what she had to say. Not anymore.
Raghead was the term most ex patriot workers in the Kingdom called the saudis–the wore what palestinians called the kafeeha–the little head dress of theirs–westerners may think it a “racist” term, but the ex-pats thought is was a convenient way to refer to them–
I wish the folks that object to the terminology applied to our semetic brethern in the mid east, had the pleasure of living amongst them for a year–Raghead would be mild to what most people would call them.
DJ: you know what. you’re right. we have to call middle-easterners ragheads, camel-jockeys, and whatever other racial slur we can think up–otherwise, the terrorists will win! they’ll topple our beloved ideals of justice and equality! diplomacy, military tactics–all this would be entirely ineffective if we didn’t resort to racial slurs. forget about all the guiltless middle-eastern school children in america getting beat up right this very moment for being ‘ragheads’. equality has its price, and some people are more equal than others. besides, as we all know, middle-eastern = crazy islamic fundamentalist. hell, america should put all middle-easterners in concentration camps, because, like, you know, america did it in the past with the nips, and if it happened in the past, then its ipso facto acceptable today. no, no, stop saying, “yeah! exactly!”–i was being sarcastic.
Roger: ya and plantation owners called their african slaves ‘darkies’ because they had dark skin. i’d love to see what would happen if ann coulter talked aggressively about darkies. nevertheless, even granting you’re pointless point, ann coulter was obviously using ‘raghead’ in its contemporary american prejorative sense, so…point not taken.
As with most of this, the problem is not all this overly self-important moralism people insist on dignifying this crud with. It is just very poor taste, on all sides and including our esteemed elected officials in Congress - both houses - which reflects badly on the speaker more than anything.
The problem the muslims face is not that the crazies are a small minority (they’re not) but that the majority reamins silent. If the majority are not crazy, whos’s to know? How many Germans were actually Nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union were card carrying members of “The Party?” What percentage of a population has to be armed and dangerous to take a nation - or the world - into catastrophe?
It is the old byword for the muslim community worldwide - “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
The world is waiting . . .
This is just embarassing. Comments lie these make it increasingly difficult for those of us who consider ourselves conservatives to defend out views in polite company. Conservatism is supposed to be about defending those things about the West that are worth defending, civility being one of them, not to mention the notion that “all men are created equal.” Coulter’s comments are emphatically uncivil, and any gratuitous disparaging of an entire race (or indeed faith) with such a broad brush shows her contempt for the view that people are equal.
The conservative movement was built upon individualism, which is at base the notion that people should be treated as, you know, individuals. The disparaging of all Arabs and/or Muslims as “ragheads” is a rejection of individualism. It is a profoundly un-conservative sentiment, and Ms. Coulter should be summarily drummed out of our movement for saying such a nasty thing. Just as the right condemned Trent Lott for crossing the racial line a couple of years ago. Of course, she should have been drummed out years ago, but such is the state of conservatism that the yokels and groupthinkers among us can’t even see the damage she does with her ignorant comments.
And lest you think I’m some sort of naive, cloistered crank blithely unfamiliar with the depths to which Miltant Radical Islam is capable of sinking, I teach a course in the ideology of al-Qaeda at a U.S. military school. I know whereof I speak, unlike many of the commentators here.
Good thing you all weren’t around when we were beating the Nips and the Krauts or you might have had a fainting spell.
Ann is clearly pulling her punches. The Ann fans I’ve had the misfortune to meet preferred to use terms like “sand niggers” and “dune coons.”
Those of you who support Coulter, please answer one question: how do you expect to find the terrorists if you alienate muslims, arabs, persians, or any other group that might take umbrage at being called a “raghead”?
“Hey raghead! Help us find this other raghead who shares your barbaric culture, incomprehensible language and risible religion.”
In Vietnam, we lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese; in the war on terror, Coulter, the LGF crowd and their ilk seem to be refusing to acknowledge such a battle even exists.
I was at the CPAC speech with other College Republicans as well, so if anyone was wondering if maybe she got misquoted or something, trust me, it was every bit as offensive as implied and then some.
There was a group at CPAC called Muslims for America, which works to convice Muslims that the Republican party is the right party for them. When the time came for people to ask questions, a representative from the group went up, and, very respectfully, asked her not to judge 1.5 billion muslims based on the actions of a very, very small minority. She basically shot him down, saying that 3,000 dead Americans gave her the right to say whatever she wanted. That is as ridiculous as saying all catholics are child molesters based on the actions of a few priests.
She then continued on, calling Republican leaders in Washington p*ssies for not fighting the democrats more often. She also spoke of moderate Republicans with nearly as much contempt as she shows liberals.
I was really disappointed. I had been looking forward to hearing her speak, but the whole thing seemed forced, and was incredibly innapropriate. She acted exactly like the stereotypical “racist, bigoted Republican” that the democrats try to make us out to be.
If there are only two positions represented here so far, “Ann Coulter is wrong” and “Ann Coulter hurts conservatives”, let me add a third: “Ann Coulter hurts the war effort.”
We can survive a thousand Michael Moores because none of those moonbats are Republicans nor do they have any credibility. What we can’t survive is Republicans, the folks in charge, insulting and antagonizing the very people we’re trying to bring over to our side.
When terrorists die we win. All conservatives believe this. Not all Muslims are terrorists. I’m pretty sure all conservatives believe this as well.
So from Mao’s Little Red Book we know that the terrorist is the fish and the people are the water. That means getting to the people is key to getting to the terrorists. “Winning hearts and minds” and “killing terrorists” are the same mission.
Right now Iraqis are fighting more terrorism per capita than we are. They’re our strongest allies in the War on Terror. Once they decided they liked us better than Al Qaeda they started turning in terrorists in droves. To go back to Mao’s analogy, thanks to our street-level diplomacy the terrorists are fish out of water — exactly the position that makes them easiest to catch.
So how do we keep the Iraqis on our side?
Certainly the American left is doing its best to undermine our alliance with Iraq, but their strategy of equating Bush with Saddam Hussein is calibrated to an audience who has never actually had to live under Saddam Hussein’s rule. American university students may be vulnerable to this propaganda, but Iraqis aren’t buying. Farenheit 9/11 showed Saddam’s Iraq as a kite-flying paradise. There’s no way Bush-bashing could possibly work after that. The moonbats are neutralized.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, nominally speaks for our side (although I hope she’ll get the David Duke treatment very soon). What are our allies supposed to make of her hateful attitude?
One talking head can’t undo all the work our soldiers have done over the past 3 years, but she sets a tone we must forcefully reject. To keep those terrorists beached we have to own the water. The mission of our soldiers overseas demands that we respect the Iraqi people and the Muslim religion.
Good post. Every group has their dirtbags, as evidenced here, that should be undermined at every turn.
Ryan:
I was in the ballroom when Coulter spoke.
I just replayed the recording I made on my digital voice recorder.
She did not use the word “thunderous.”
She said:
“…as I think our motto should be post-9/11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’”
When Julian Bond makes outrageous, slanderous alllegations against conservatives at a “traditionally black college” (a tiresome euphemism), you can depend on the libs to conspire to keep it secret. But let a conservative show up at one and make one lousy joke, then use the word “raghead,” she’s everyone hears aboutit, and everyone picks up a stone to hurl.
Big deal. The word “raghead” makes you feel faint? Then you don’t have the stomach for this fight. Bond and his ilk have much worse terms than that for us.
Hateful attitude, huh? Well. I have a hateful attitude toward those who want to kill me because I don’t live under Islamic strictures. Call me an idiot, but I’m gonna keep it.
OUTRAGE over a comment ANN(fingerprod)COULTER said? that doesnt seem even remotely possible as OUTRAGE usually means that a LARGE number of persons either disagreed or were affected by the comment and i cant imagine that there are is a LARGE number of anyone’s who listen to ann(selfpuker)coulter. i mean let’s face it if you take away sean hannity(who last week said on his show he believes “christ actually walked on water and went around casting out demons”…LOL…wwhoooooo how scary is that?)pat robertson and rush druggedup limbo then surely ann’s audience is quite limited. (oh dont forget the ones who dance with snakes around their necks on the weekends.) so as ya can see “ragheads” really is not that offensive at all once you fully examine the source of the comment and the AUDIENCE it was meant for. it would be like someone saying the terms “PUKER” or “FINGERFOODLAUNCHER” or even “LUNCHCHUCKSPECIALIST” and all of ann’s “FANS” right away assumed you meant it in a “racist” and “desparaging” way when all you were doing is simply stating that some people have bulimia! so please stop giving ann undue coverage i mean lets face it after THE SWEEP comes in november of this year she is gonna be hard to find. i always find it to be amazing how people who seem to have the most COMMENTS about other religions and cultures,(while professing to be so RIGHTEOUS and MORALLLY AWARE)are usually the ones with the more serious problems be it a 3 pack a day nicotine habit or the disgusting practice of bulimia! i mean let’s be serious do persons really give weight to what this little gal says about religions when she believes in the VIRGIN BIRTH,walking on water,levitation(one can only assume there was no gravity back in jerusalem at the time)and while she “jokes” about other religions she sits there wearing a DEAD GUY ON A CROSS around her neck! so ya see …..it was a joke what she said about “ragheads” because after all SHE IS A JOKE!
Which murderous ragheads would Jesus kill?
Those who find in the Koran justification for their hatred of Muslims…do you call yourselves Christians? A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I have never read the Koran; I cannot speak to the teachings it holds for its adherents. However, I do know what Jesus expects of us. Do you?
Man there are some real idiots on this blog. I feel sorry for some of you, it must be tough trying to go through life with an IQ of a carrot.
Stop insulting carrots.
What I want to know is, does Ann Coulter mind being called an on-the-raghead?
some of you who are against ann coulter’s comment are ultimately no better than those who are for it. really the only advantage you have is that you’re shrewder. listen to yourselves. it’s not a good idea to call middle-easterners ragheads because it’d undermine america’s effort win over the hearts and minds of the iraqis? so if we weren’t trying to win over their hearts and minds it’d be okay to insult them? yeah, probably. and what of all the middle-easterners who are american citizens, some of whom fleed their country to be free from tyranny and persecution? they’re not really americans right? after all, they’re not anglos, and, come on, we all know ‘american’ really is just short for ‘anglo-american’.
when there’s no real respect, your “winning over their hearts and minds” is really just “brainwashing” (”brainwashing”, you know, the prototypical method of the enemies of the american ideal).
and it’s not a question of ‘outrage’. it’s a question of mindset. it doesn’t matter if no one but republican good ol’ boys hear this comment–what matters is the type of mindset it encourages. and the mindset encouraged by this comment is not only lacking in good taste, but, moreover, it mitigates the alienation of middle-eastern americans and is therefore anathema to the american ideal, which I guess is just bullshit when you get down to it right?
“come on get off your moral high horse”. what does it say about the values of our society when being opposed to bigotry is a sign that one is overly moral? even nietzsche, who took pride in calling himself an immoralist, had nothing but contempt for bigotry. and yet, in our society, nietzsche would be a prude. that’s funny…
“… a representative from the group went up, and, very respectfully, asked her not to judge 1.5 billion muslims based on the actions of a very, very small minority. She basically shot him down, saying that 3,000 dead Americans gave her the right to say whatever she wanted…”
Ann had a point, and she was correct to state it. But she shouldn’t have shot him down. Instead, she should have challenged him and the other 1.5 billion to effectively deal with the destructive minority.
It’s not only the dead 3,000 that “gives her the right” to say what she does. It’s the relative silence and ineffectuality of the 1.5 billion. Really, what is the value of 1.5 billion good intentions? Isn’t it time they made that plain, or have they already?
Does ( to hugh above ) anybody remember the Angle of the Lord killed all the first born in Egypt ( Jesus was present then and he is here with us today in our hearts ). Being a follower is not alway enough but it’s a good start. Remember he talked more
about Hell than Haven. I pray for Ann and I think she was emotional. I’ll take her over any of those who enjoy watching 3000 people die and celebrating about it or 40 million and do nothing .
what has 99% of the american population done? what have they offered but ‘good intentions’? blogs? yellow ribbons? racist, biliious rhetoric? and what about 99.99999% of the world’s population?
and 3,000 dead gives ann coulter no right at all. why should _she_ get any right from that? what has she done other than to encourage bigotry? ann coulter isn’t the only other american. and americans aren’t just crazy, fundamentalist white people. americans are of european decent, african decent, asian decent, and, guess what, middle-eastern decent. those 3,000 died for america, not for ann coulter. they died for american ideals, like equality, solidarity, and a justice that is blind to things like ethnicity, ideals which ann coulter has gone further than most people to sully with her spleen. all ann coulter does is make it difficult for decent americans, including especially middle-eastern americans, to show support for the american cause. how can a middle-eastern american make a show of his support for the american cause, when that would imply his alliance with people like ann coulter? how could his support be seen as anything but self-hate? indeed, how many middle-eastern americans get 1% as much airtime as people like ann coulter? at any rate, there are a number of middle-eastern bloggers out there showing support for the american cause. they’re just not as interesting, i suppose, as the middle-easterners who are ann coulter-like nutjobs.
“what has 99% of the american population done? what have they offered but ‘good intentions’?”
The best of them have unequivocally, persistently, and effectively stated their positions (and more).
“…and 3,000 dead gives ann coulter no right at all.”
True. As a citizen of a free country, she already had the right to speak freely.
“how can a middle-eastern american make a show of his support for the american cause, when that would imply his alliance with people like ann coulter?”
By making the same sort of distinctions that the 1.5 billion good muslims expect us to make. Of course, it is not Coulter’s positions that are ambiguous.
“…there are a number of middle-eastern bloggers out there showing support for the american cause. they’re just not as interesting, i suppose, as the middle-easterners who are ann coulter-like nutjobs.”
Exactly. Nor are they as influential within the muslim world.
Jim O’Sullivan:
“Bond and his ilk have much worse terms than that for us.”
And look where it got them.
“I have a hateful attitude toward those who want to kill me …”
Excellent. You’re one step ahead of the moonbats, here. Some enemies, like the British in India, you defeat with love; others, like Islamic terrorists, you defeat with hate. You have correctly identified the most effective tool for dealing with our present enemy.
Be aware, however, that hate can cloud your judgement. Don’t hate like the sun, burning everything in sight; hate like a laser, burning a precise hole straight through the enemy’s heart.
And don’t call our allies disparaging names. They hate terrorists just as much as we do.
Cow:
“… really the only advantage you have is that you’re shrewder …”
Well duh. I would call that a pretty big advantage.
“… what has 99% of the american population done?”
Remember the Todd Beamer Militia.
“… how can a middle-eastern american make a show of his support for the american cause …”
Because there are more Republicans like Ryan Sageron than Ann Coulter. We know who our friends are and we stand up for them.
“The best of them”–already that’s beside the point, which concerned “not the best of them” but “99%”. Even so, where in the world did you get the idea that middle-easterners don’t have a position?
“True. As a citizen of a free country, she already had the right to speak freely.”
again, beside the point. the issue isn’t free speech, but whether her insult was justified. ann coulter lorded 3,000 dead americans over middle-eastern-AMERICANS. as if 3,000 dead americans was something middle-eastern americans took from ann coulter, and that, therefore, the middle-eastern americans deserved such insults from her (when, in fact, she deserves it more than most americans).
of course ann coulter’s position isn’t ambigious. anyone that much of a caricature of wingnuttery can hardly be vague.
“Nor are they as influential within the muslim world.” what’s your point here exactly? that therefore its okay to call them ragheads?
“Well duh. I would call that a pretty big advantage.”
Depends on how you look at it. I mean, there is a little thing called character. So, e.g., there’s the difference between your average, stupid jihadists and your shrewder bin ladens. in a sense, the advantage lies with the bin laden type, but that doesn’t make him a better person: in fact, it makes him worse.
“Remember the Todd Beamer Militia.”
Remember “99%”.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you” - Nietzsche
“Remember “99%”.”
The American 99% have mustered, from within, many eloquent and diverse voices who speak their minds forthrightly and unambiguously on all subjects. We hear them, dissect their arguments, expand upon them (e.g. on Internet discussion threads) and then put our ballots where our mouths are.
Where are the “good muslim” eloquents? I’m speaking of those in the West, who happen to be the most educated and prosperous muslims in the world. Are they are terrified of their own 99%?
It’s a difficult position to be in, but unfortunately, the only full refutation to some of the most confrontational speech (like Coulter’s) would be for good muslims to mobilize publicly and politically to deal with the nutjobs in their midst. That would take some courage and would probably be evidenced by lots of unambiguous speech.
This is just embarassing. Comments lie these make it increasingly difficult for those of us who consider ourselves conservatives to defend out views in polite company.
Spoken like someone who has never crossed the threshold of the Democratic Underground.
I mean my friend, the roots of the nonsense were fighting and when I say we arm including Ann, are far from polite.
i repeat, how many middle-easterns do you know that have 1% of the airtime ann coulter has to begin with? secondly, again repeating, there are a number of middle-eastern bloggers in support of the american cause. that they’re not popular may be their fault due to say, lack of talent or charisma–but you can hardly hold that against them. and since when is being an eloquent speaker a sign of good character? hitler, they say, was a great speaker. a man of conviction too, which goes to show you how much convictions are worth.
and, for the billionth time, just because certain americans speak their own opinions, you can’t credit that to 99% of the americans, just as you can’t credit the actions of certain middle-eastern jihadists to 99% of middle-easterners. and if you do credit it to 99% of americans (which you apparently do), then it just goes to show you how you equate american with anglo-american, and thereby implicity exclude middle-eastern americans, denying them the title of american–which pretty much sums up the mentality i’m attacking.
and what’s your deal with unambigious speech? first-off, subtlety (i.e., not being merely a Yes or No man) is a sign of intelligence in my opinion, and unambigious speakers tend not to be very subtle (as evidenced by ann coulter). secondly, have you heard a lot of ambigious speech by middle-easterners or something? because otherwise, i have no idea where you’re coming from.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he himself does not become a monster.”
Let us check this out.
How many of Coulter’s friends and supporters have cut heads off live screaming people?
How many have flown planes into buildings in Tehran?
How many have slaughtered school children in thier classrooms?
etc., etc., etc.
Let us be careful with the gaint leaps in logic here.
Some of you guys are really making the lefties smile, along with the radical Islamnist.
Throw out the 1st Amemdment. After all, our 1st consideration, and final thought, should be for peoples feelings.
Let me know how that works out for you, dhimmis.
unbelievable, now many, too many,
so called “conservatives” support torture,
wiretapping w/out warrants, holding individuals
without charge or trial secretly (definitely not conservative)
and now blatant racism. and this foolhardy, macho posturing, somehow comparing the rejection of a racist term to ones willingness to fight?
as if talking tough and being it were the same thing.
but her comment isn’t even just tough-talk.
be honest, its stupid talk, the vast majority of “ragheads” just live their lives w/work and family, just like we do.
al-qaeda barely even has a following, some scattered few thousand in a population of a billion. no ones getting “the vapors” from a mere word, but i for one reject this clearly racist, janet jackson-nipple of a statement.
its getting hard to be a real, principled, conservative.
I guess this group IS full of racists. not all of you, but from a glance at the posting here, racist right-wingers are clearly not a tiny minority, just the “other” side of a debate i guess,
where are all the posters to stand-up and condemn this obvious nonsense, y’know, like we ask muslim leaders to do? think it over, take a stand that great americans throughout history have taken and oppose this clear and simple racism. thanx to those who did. and thanx for the Nietzsche quote (one of my favorite philosophers).
Matthew,
Please, no caffeine or sugar for you tomorrow.
eneil: if all it takes to qualify as not being a monster is not being a homicidal maniac, then..well..you have obviously don’t have very high standards for yourself, and i’m sorry to say that i’d think twice before inviting you over to dinner.
cynic: who said anything about the first amendment? don’t i have an equal right to make my opinion known? did i miss something? does the first amendment gaurantee citizens the right not to be contradicted?
and it’s not a question of feelings. its a question decency. you know, “decency”? i dunno, i kinda like decency. i think its something that shouldn’t be given up even if the other side has given it up. i even think its something worth fighting for.
This is amusing. You know you’re winning an argument with a gliberal when they drag out the term “racist” as it is a clear indicator that they can’t defeat you on facts so it is time to resort to name-calling. To cynic and others, what race are “muslims”?
Answer: White (more specifically, “aryan”, not actually a “race” but a geopolitical cultural root), oriental, so. pacific islanders, blacks, etc. …What race is Ann Coulter or others who are also using the term “raghead”? Blacks, white, orientals, etc.
Reality has no bearing in your little hate-filled world, does it? I can assure you that your the practitioners of the “religion of peace” will gleefully hack your’ freakin’ empty heads off first. After all, you sissy Nancy boys will be the easiest targets as you don’t believe in defending your delicate selves from peaceful people just having their lives just like us….(laughs in your face)
cow13,
Like I said, let us be careful with the logic. Oh, and by the way, thanks for the instant analysis of me. Monster, huh, I kinda like that. Keep me informed as to what is on your menu, I’ll come over, as long as you don’t preach and try to judge people.
i didn’t call you a monster. i’m sorry you have trouble understanding subtleties (which actually aren’t really all that subtle).
anyway, i don’t think nietzsche was referring to homicidal maniacs when he used the word ‘monster’. try thinking that over a bit before playing the logician.
a conservative says something controversial and conservatives critique it, and most - negatively. when same happens on the left there is only thunderous applause. [did i say ‘thunderous’ or ‘ruinous’]?
“Depends on how you look at it. I mean, there is a little thing called character.”
Indeed; lacking the spirit to fight the War on Terror is indicative of low self-esteem, the valuing of the lives of terrorists above ones own. This is certainly a most grievous character flaw. Few conservatives suffer from it.
“… in fact, it [intelligence] makes him worse …”
“subtlety … is a sign of intelligence in my opinion …”
I’ll let the subtlety and intelligence speak for themselves.
“Remember the Todd Beamer Militia.”
“Remember ‘99%’”
Indeed. The Todd Beamer Militia was drawn from that 99%. These were average citizens, who without military training organized themselves into a fighting force which defeated a group of hardened terrorists. Americans will fight, not just the ones in the military, but your 99% as well. (Eh, gotta make allowances for the moonbats — make it 66%)
In an effort to stay on-topic I’ll reiterate that insulting ones allies is a poor strategy for defeating ones enemies. Ann Coulter was out of line.
“Indeed; lacking the spirit to fight the War on Terror is indicative of low self-esteem, the valuing of the lives of terrorists above ones own. This is certainly a most grievous character flaw.”
i said and implied absolutely nothing about not wanting the fight the war, or even of valuing the lives of terrorists at all. I do, however, believe that “subtlety is a sign of intelligence”. I’ll let that speak for itself.
“Indeed. The Todd Beamer Militia was drawn from that 99%.”
Seeing as how this is the same form of argument I’ve repeatedly responded to and attacked, I’ll just quote myself: “and, for the billionth [+1] time, just because certain americans speak their own opinions [or attack terrorists on planes], you can’t credit that to 99% of the americans, just as you can’t credit the actions of certain middle-eastern jihadists to 99% of middle-easterners. and if you do credit it to 99% of americans (which you apparently do), then it just goes to show you how you equate american with anglo-american, and thereby implicity exclude middle-eastern americans, denying them the title of american–which pretty much sums up the mentality i’m attacking.”
oh and regarding your, “Few conservatives suffer from it.”–please don’t play your protofascist “you’re either for us or against us” game with me. I kinda enjoy thinking for myself.
stupid, stupid americans
Cow, we don’t have to call them anything. But the hair trigger PC zeitgist must go. Keep up that “most Muslims are good” mantra that the left is so paralyzed by and watch while the bad ones continue to gain ground. Were MOST Japanese bad? How many innocents had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor or Nanking? Thank God LeMay had the courage to fire bomb their asses anyway and if epithets like “Nips” steeled those pilots to their task, good.
DJ,
If nothing else (like a sense of decency), then, at very least, americans, insofar as they are americans, have a responsibility towards americans, some of whom are of middle-eastern decent. Collateral damage is one thing, reveling in anglo-”american” bigotry is another. Also, considering what we claim to be fighting for (i.e., the american way of life), bear in mind that naturalized immigrants are much closer to the so-called american dream than most anglo-americans, many (but certainly not all) of whom have done very little to deserve such privilege, and some of whom, like ann coulter with her sensationalist and opportunistic anti-american hate speech, have done less than nothing.
regarding claims of practicality: i don’t think military men and women are such mindless brutes that they need bigotry in order to do their job efficiently. in fact, in such a volatile situation, as Laika pointed out, it would more than likely do much more harm than good. moreover, considering how often veterans are traumatized by the brutality of war, i dont think adding even more brutality would be wise. but, regardless, though i consider myself a practical person, i don’t think everything can be reduced to practicality: eventually you have ask yourself, “What do I want my practicality to be directed towards?” As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death”.
“… you can’t credit that to 99% of the americans …”
Except you can. No one knows what percentage of the Americans on board Flight 93 took up arms against the terrorists, but they all came from that 99%. They were as typical a cross-section of America as any other group of airline passengers.
And they gave their lives to bring us our first costly victory in the War on Terror.
Since then our brave soldiers have stepped into the breach, taking the bullets and bombs so the rest of us won’t have to, but the spirit of Flight 93 lives on.
“… implicity exclude middle-eastern americans …”
Many of our soldiers, particularly translators, have Middle Eastern roots. Had they been on Flight 93 they would’ve been carrying fire extinguishers, not box cutters.
“… protofascist …”
*giggle*
Laika,
Ok, I’m really getting tired of repeating myself, but it seems you’re totally missing the point and, though I’m inclined to just throw my hands in the air say, “forget it, it’s just over your head,” I’m gonna try one more time. What I am attacking is the idea that its okay to call middle-easterners ragheads, which is, if you’ll notice, how this whole 99% business came up. The specific idea I was attacking with that 99% thing is the idea that ann coulter is justified in calling middle-easterns ‘ragheads’ because, as she puts it, “5,000 dead americans give me that right”. I replied that that gives her, in particular, no such right (noting also this is not an issue of free speech, but of justification, which is what “right” means in the context in which she used it: she can say what she wants, but she’s not veridically justified in doing so). Now, to assume that its okay to insult middle-easterners as a whole because of 5,000 dead americans is to imply that no middle-easterners are american in fullest sense, that, in other words, those 5,000 dead americans were taken from anglo-americans like ann coulter, since it apparently gives anglo-americans the justification to insult other americans, specifically middle-eastern americans. Now, E Rey used the argument that americans do have the justification because they’ve been outspoken about this whole affair while middle-easterners have not been. I pointed out how not only is this inaccurate in that middle-easterners have been outspoken about their support (though less successfully due to what the sensationalist media coverage), but, moreover, its also misguided in that it implies that 99% can take credit for the actions 1% of americans, while, hypocritically, giving no credit to middle-eastern americans, excluding them from that 99% as if they weren’t really americans (for if it didn’t exclude, then insulting them couldn’t be justified). Do you understand now?
and “they all come from that 99%” makes no sense. and that they’re a typical cross-section is still no reason for credit to be given to you or ann coulter or me (in fact, I’d love to see the expression on the faces of the friends and family of the Todd Beamer militia when you tell them, “I deserve credit for their deeds”).
“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual”
- George Washington, apparently doing standup comedy.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I have consistently maintained that Ann Coulter is in the wrong. Most Republicans agree, as is in evidence on this very board.
“‘they all come from that 99%’ makes no sense”
You’re the one who brought statistics into this. You asked, “… what has 99% of the american population done?”
I answered with what some significant percentage of the American population is prepared to do. Pick a few dozen names from a phone book and throw them on a plane with some terrorists. That’s Flight 93. That’s America.
As for who can stand with Todd Beamer, I would say American soldiers, the firemen at the WTC, the government officials who worked at the Pentagon, the KBR workers (whose deaths bring the cry of “Screw ‘Em!” from moonbats), the journalists who venture outside the Green Zone, and the civilian professionals in fields such as banking and medicine who put their jobs on hold and their lives on the line to bring their specific knowledge to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your Washington quote hits closer to home. America needs a valid opposition party. We just don’t have one right now. But it’s not my fault, and it certainly isn’t the fault of Republicans. Perhaps we can move debates over pork and stem cells and such into the Republican primaries, and in this small way practice democracy among the adults, but I would prefer for the other side to grow up.
“I think you have me confused with someone else. I have consistently maintained that Ann Coulter is in the wrong. ”
(a) this was the entire point behind my even bringing up the 99% which you took issue with.
(b) you claimed she was in the wrong for quite different reasons, reasons which left it open whether or not it was in fact okay, though disadvantageous, to disparage middle-easterners as whole (and thereby middle-eastern americans).
“”‘they all come from that 99%’ makes no sense”
You’re the one who brought statistics into this. You asked, “… what has 99% of the american population done?”"
you’re misinterpreting me. i said that saying that the 1% comes from the 99% makes no sense. think of it this way, say there’s 100 marbles in a jar. take 1 out. there’s 99 left inside. did that one come from the 99? no, it doesn’t even makes sense to say that it did. it does make sense to say the 1 came out of the 100, but that’s trivially true and not at all helpful to anyone’s point.
and i’m not saying the todd beamer militia are the only people who have actively helped out. 1% (obviously a very rough estimate) is a lot more people than those who constituted the todd beamer militia, considering that there are about 250+ million americans.
and the washington quote isn’t about the danger of not having opposition parties–it’s about the danger of having opposition parties (or just parties in general). note: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension [etc.]”. Washington’s sentiments, i believe, actually echo Rousseau’s (on this matter anyway). Rousseau also believed that having parties, or “corporate wills” was a danger to democracy. his reasoning, roughly, was that the function of a true democracy was to establish and execute the general will of society. the general will isn’t the will of most or even the sum of all wills; rather, it is the will that is common to all. Now, Rousseau thought the way to establish the general will was to have people vote on what they thought the general will was (NOT what was in their own best interest). in other words, they are to vote their general will not their private will. but he saw that this couldn’t happen effectively if factions formed. the people who participated in factions would no longer vote their general will, but, rather, their corporate will, the will of their party. it then becomes a matter of “us versus them” rather than “all for all”. and so, when their party succeeds in getting power, they work, by and large, towards their own benefit, rather than towards the benefit of the general public. often such corporate wills even work towards disadvantaging their opposition at the expense of the welfare of the general public: the monica lewinsky scandal is arguably one instance of this, and so is the fact that both parties often don’t vote for what they think would be in everyone’s best interest, but, rather, for what will keep them in power (e.g., the democrats refraining from voting against alito, even though they didn’t think he’d make a good justice). and so, I repeat, it becomes a matter of us versus them. this corporate will is merely another type of power-hungry despot working toward its own ends at the expense of others. even if it constitutes the majority, it is merely a tyranny of the majority. And so, Washington writes: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
The tyranny of the majority, by the way, is a real danger that is apparent in those who see no real problem in disparaging a minority of americans, such as middle-eastern americans. if we deliberated political matters with respect to the general will, I don’t believe we’d think it okay to disparage middle-eastern americans.
oh and i forgot the mention the dangers of groupthink, which always gets in the way of determing the general will.
Does anyone remember “THE ANGEL OF THE LORD KILLED ALL THE FIRSTBORN IN EGYPT?”……LOL actually i DONT remember that and apparently alot of historians seem to have forgotten it too….PROBABLY because it NEVER happened……..yet lets just say(for sake of argument)that this AMAZING event did take place…….is one to guess that the people (christians)who pray to this same god…..(cruel mass murderer apparently)….are these the same persons who are so MORAL and RIGHTEOUS that they can refer to people of “those other religions” as ragheads!…..
Looks like the anti-Ann crowd has been busy editing Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghead
The problem with Coulter is that you will lose independents such as myself in the next election. What kind of rhetoric does this accomplish other then selling books.
Mark Baird,
Why would anybody, with more than a sliver of a brain, care about cow-towing to the sensitivities of independents? You guys sit on the fence and drift where the convenient political winds take you. That’s not rugged-individualism, self-determination or self-actualization - that’s spinelessness. And you want someone with determination, e.g. Ann, to lose sleep at night wondering whether your emotions were placated to?
“you claimed she was in the wrong for quite different reasons, reasons which left it open …”
That was intentional. If Ann Coulter had said “Islamofascist” instead of the word she used I would be 100% behind her. A disparaging remark accurately focused on the enemy is good; a disparaging remark that indiscriminately sprays friendlies with collateral damage is bad.
The 99% argument is growing increasingly silly, mostly because you’ve mixed this metaphor onto two different meanings.
The meaning I take issue with is your implication that there is an elite 1% who will do something about terrorists and the other 99% won’t. Flight 93 is a counterexample: a random sample of Americans spontaneously organized themselves into a militia and defended their country from terrorism.
My family was killed by a black man. My mother, father, two brothers, and sister were all driving back home at night from visiting me in college to see me recieve an award, and stopped at a gas station at about 11 at night. The nigger was holding up the c-store clerk, and hid when he saw my father coming. My sister and one brother came in right behind dad, probably for a pop or something, and the nigger shot my sister first in the chest, then my brother in the head, and the clerk and my father from far range, killing the clerk with the first bullet and hitting my dad first in the shoulder, then in the head to finish him. My other brother was looking out the car window and the black man shot him in the head, and my mother was crouching in her seat when he shot her in the back and then the head. The nigger got away.
To this day, if a nigger steps on my property, I shoot. If a nigger looks at my car, my house, my wife, my children, I flash my weapon. The loss of my family gives me THE RIGHT to kill any nigger I see dead if he so much as breathes on me wrong. I don’t give a shit about this “99%” crap. If you’re black, and you’re in my neighborhood, you don’t belong there, and you will pay consequences, with you’re life if your not careful. Thank God for the 2nd amendment, my gun is my way of life, and anyone who wants to take away that freedom, the last thing they’ll see is the business end of my shotgun.
Since 9/11, I’ve expanded my killing niggers policy to killing ragheads, since they killed my American family, and I thank Ann Coulter for giving me that term to round um all up. It’s not one person, or “1%.” It’s their CULTURE. Their CULTURE wants us dead, just like niggers want our cars and our wives. You who can’t see that deserve anything those niggers and ragheads throw at you, and I hope you get weeded out. You want to be nice to terrorists? Go camp with them, they’ll cut your head off in your sleep.
George W. Bush is a man who understands the need to take care of them before they take care of us. And now Iran? Nuke ‘em. Nuke ‘em now. We have them, they are getting them, it’s only a matter of time before tehy use them and we’re sitting on ours like your gramma’s couch.
If the Constitution says anything, it says Americans have the duty not to be pussies and keep our freedoms that our fourfathers fought and died for. You let up on that any and you deserve nothing but death.
Man, I just read Jess’s post, and boy do I have alot to say.
“My family was killed by a black man. My mother, father, two brothers, and sister were all driving back home at night from visiting me in college to see me recieve an award, and stopped at a gas station at about 11 at night. The nigger was holding up the c-store clerk, and hid when he saw my father coming. My sister and one brother came in right behind dad, probably for a pop or something, and the nigger shot my sister first in the chest, then my brother in the head, and the clerk and my father from far range, killing the clerk with the first bullet and hitting my dad first in the shoulder, then in the head to finish him. My other brother was looking out the car window and the black man shot him in the head, and my mother was crouching in her seat when he shot her in the back and then the head. The nigger got away.”
First let me just say I am sorry for the loss of your family. I have to ask though: If the gunman was white, would you hate all white people?
“To this day, if a nigger steps on my property, I shoot. If a nigger looks at my car, my house, my wife, my children, I flash my weapon. The loss of my family gives me THE RIGHT to kill any nigger I see dead if he so much as breathes on me wrong. I don’t give a shit about this “99%” crap. If you’re black, and you’re in my neighborhood, you don’t belong there, and you will pay consequences, with you’re life if your not careful. Thank God for the 2nd amendment, my gun is my way of life, and anyone who wants to take away that freedom, the last thing they’ll see is the business end of my shotgun.”
Yeah thank god for that second amendment, which you people obviously dont read the first half of. Also, if you think the second amendment gives you the right to shoot whoever you want with a shotgun, that gunman that killed your family had every right to bear his weapon and shoot your family according to your logic. Also, killing random “niggers” on your lawn is not going to bring your family back.
“Since 9/11, I’ve expanded my killing niggers policy to killing ragheads, since they killed my American family, and I thank Ann Coulter for giving me that term to round um all up. It’s not one person, or “1%.” It’s their CULTURE. Their CULTURE wants us dead, just like niggers want our cars and our wives. You who can’t see that deserve anything those niggers and ragheads throw at you, and I hope you get weeded out. You want to be nice to terrorists? Go camp with them, they’ll cut your head off in your sleep.”
If you know so much about their culture you speak of, you must be or be associated with this “raghead” culture. But chances are you really dont know squat. Oh, and I would also like to address the crap about “the koran calls for the murder of all infidels (or non-muslims).” All the quotes from the koran cited by Deoxy basically say “curse the people who dont believe in our god.” First, the Bible says the same stuff. Second, just to let you know, the Muslim God Allah is the same god worshipped by Christians and Jews, they just call him by a different name. In addition, i hardly believe their motive is their faith. Chances are they are more angry with people like you calling them “ragheads.”
“George W. Bush is a man who understands the need to take care of them before they take care of us. And now Iran? Nuke ‘em. Nuke ‘em now. We have them, they are getting them, it’s only a matter of time before tehy use them and we’re sitting on ours like your gramma’s couch.”
Yeah lets start a nuclear holocaust good idea!
“If the Constitution says anything, it says Americans have the duty not to be pussies and keep our freedoms that our fourfathers fought and died for. You let up on that any and you deserve nothing but death.”
First off I am pretty sure the constitution doesn’t say “Americans have the duty not to be pussies.” Other than that, I’m not even going to go into the complete irony of this statement as we continually lose our rights and disguise it as “fighting terrorism.”
Jess’ post is a joke, right?
you’re still missing the point. the fact that your point depends upon whether or not their allies still betrays that you think about it merely in terms of utility to anglo-americans rather than to americans period.
i never said or implied anything about what anyone will do. i don’t know where you got that idea from. in any case, flight 93 is not a counterexample to either idea, for the same reasons i noted earlier.
Just Americans. You can strike the “anglo” part.
You’ve obviously failed to note that I referred to American Muslims as “us”. The “allies” to which I referred are Iraqis. You’re confusing religion with nationality.
You do have one good point: the Muslims a typical American non-Muslim is likely to meet won’t be Iraqi defense forces but fellow Americans, so focusing on Coulter’s damage to the war effort is of little use on a strictly personal level.
***
Jess is a troll. There are subtle clues that give it away.
First Clue: Isolationists Hate Internationalists
Typically xenophobic racists hate Bush, and in particular Bush’s foreign policy, either because it involves too much nation building or not enough killing. This might be a typical combination of the two themes: “Abu Ghraib proves soldiers aren’t meant for nation-building. None of that would’ve happened if we had just nuked Mecca!”
Second Clue: Bush’s Nuclear Diplomacy
“Jess” definitely presses the “nuke Mecca” button, but he also betrays an exclusively far-left view that Bush is likely to do it. Far-rightists hate Bush because they believe Bush WON’T nuke Mecca (or in this case Iran). Only liberals believe that Bush is inches away from pushing the button.
Third Clue: The Missing Conspiracy Theory
“Jess” would’ve mentioned something about Bush being controlled by the evil Neocons on behalf of Israel. A few far-rightists disdain the cliche’ Jewish conspiracy in favor of the Saudi Arabian one: they believe Bush is weak on terror and won’t “nuke Mecca” because of his father’s connections to the “House of Saud” (as they call the leadership of Saudi Arabia).
Conclusion: “Jess” Doesn’t Add Up
“Jess” doesn’t fit the profile of the person he’s attempting to pass himself off as. In fact I suspect, due to the second clue, that “Jess” is a liberal who’s engaging in his idea of ironic fun.
All of you wingers who think that quoting the Koran shows how ‘wickedly bloodthirsty’ those ‘ragheads’ are should google ‘biblical genocide’. Suprise, suprise!
You who call yourselves Christians might want to read the New Testament. If you don’t adhere to the teachings of Christ, you can still be a Godly person - just not a Christian. And you can continue to be ‘righteously bloodthirsty’. But, Jesus Christ, get your act together!
I used to believe that what people find through religion is but a reflection of themselves, but that theory fails to explain the statistical imbalance of various religions with respect to the distribution of behaviors of their practitioners.
I have some other theories:
People’s Behavior Dictates the Religion
There is some predisposition of persons of certain behavioral tendencies to choose particular religions they feel are more conducive to the expression of their particular tendencies. This certainly explains Unitarians, but most people choose the religion of their parents, which is strong evidence that believers’ behavioral tendencies should be randomized for most religions.
Religion Dictates People’s Behavior
There is some qualitative difference in the religious philosophies themselves which predispose their members to different behaviors. But if this were so, why are modern Christians relatively peaceful when they presided over such appalling carnage in the past? If religions dictate behavior and religions don’t change, radical behavioral shifts argue against the significance of religious doctrine per se.
Cult of Personality
Religions are merely conduits for Leaders, good, bad, crazy, or otherwise, to collect followers. Religion is but the capsule on the virus: the Leader uses it to implant himself into the cells of his followers, but the capsule itself is mostly an inert collection of proteins which can be moulded into whatever fits.
Under this scenario religious violence is truly senseless: it is merely collateral damage, a symptom of the clergyman’s attempt to unlock the cell membrane of the host.
But there’s a chicken-and-egg problem here: if preaching violence gets you followers, doesn’t that mean the followers have ultimate control over what gets preached and thus what orders they will obey?
God’s Will
Spiritual beliefs are by nature unpredictable. The behaviors we’re seeing might be as random as lottery balls in a rotating drum of hot air, in which case all these theories amount to the same thing.
E Rey:
[[It’s not only the dead 3,000 that “gives her the right” to say what she does. It’s the relative silence and ineffectuality of the 1.5 billion. Really, what is the value of 1.5 billion good intentions? Isn’t it time they made that plain, or have they already?]]
If you watch the news carefully, various western Muslim groups do periodically condemn terrorism. These are, of course, statements aimed at the wider culture, but in my observations of Muslims in the university I went to, it appears that the message inside the community is the same; terrorism is forbidden/wrong.
They, of course, don’t necessarily represent the Muslim community outside the West, but neither do the various spokesmen that show up on the nightly news. Polls would be the way to find out; but that’s not possible; a largish proportion of Muslims live in countries that wouldn’t allow independent polls, and don’t have an independent press. But unfortunately, support for terrorism does appear to be widespread in parts of the Islamic world.
What isn’t often recognized though is that terrorists terrorize their own communities perhaps more so than their enemies. Not as dramatically certainly, but in more mundane brutality that stifles dissent. What is needed to combat terrorism is a credible political process to replace it as a way for the people to express their wishes. And that political process needs protection from terrorists, who will try to destroy it. And to be credible, that political process will have to allow some pretty radical voices in it. We do have to let “Rag-head[s] talks tough”, though not necessarily without limit (e.g. no calls for violence). And if we allow the Iraqi government (say) political autonomy, as we will eventually have to, we won’t get much of a say anyway. It’s a tough row to hoe.
But quite apart from calling Muslims or Arabs “rag-heads” (and calling for their speach to be stifled!) being counterproductive, it’s also wrong. There are a great many people at the recieving end of that epithet that don’t deserve to be. Yes many Muslims do deserve to be called such names, but it is grossly unfair to act as if they all do. And that is what using such slurs does; those are not words of great specificity.
An interesting movie due for release: “Valley of the Wolves”. It shows the true ugly side of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
“Kurtlar vadisi - Irak” (”Valley of the Wolves”)
Check it out at Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493264/
Listening to you morons babble makes me hope that the next terrorist attack in the USA is committed by blonde women. This two birds would be killed with one stone. Coulter wouldn’t have jack to say about it, and you could put that bimbo in a concentration camp.
P.S. I’m neither right or left. I’m just laughing at you fools.
How many do you hope are killed?
not sure how many he “hopes get killed”……….but my question is after the attack will the networks cover it and show us the results right away or are there TOO gonna wait 2 days and then slowly give us BITS of what actually happened…….after they SLEEP IT OFF too
That depends. If the Army of Blonde Women were Neo-Nazis the press would “flood the zone” to borrow a New York Times phrase. At the dark heart of these vile domestic terrorists would lurk the “root cause”: an atmosphere of intolerance nurtured by evil Republicans.
If the flaxen-haired terrorists were Islamic radicals (the little-known “Blondes with Burkas Brigade”) the networks would be very careful not to show people leaping to their deaths from the burning buildings lest it incite Americans to overreact with some appalling jingoistic militarism such as a “War on Terror”.
The press understands that only appeasement leads to Peace in Our Time.
you all are so fired up about “sides” to the war, how to classify muslims (one group, two groups, individually- not classified at all?) that you don’t even see the rampant partisanship. “democrats and libs do this”, “conservatives like that will…”, etc. If we’re ever going to “Win” this “War” on terrorism, we’re going to have to work for people as a whole, and work together doing so- without everyone hating half the country that happens to have a different belief system. So, while you republicans sit and bitch about the democrats who are bitching about you all and flag burning, and gay marriage, and all those other Non-Issues: SHIT is getting done in office and as planned, government officials with a little help from their corporate sponsers are running america right out of your pocketbooks. Why can’t we all just be People trying to figure out the best solution for everyone without the pettiness and hatred. Figure that one out.