[Luisabens]

Coulter's exaggerations are usually pretty far out in left field, deliberately so to show how silly the leftists' agenda can logically take them. But here she actually makes some pretty right-on points, especially in the 3rd and 13th paragraphs. She also has a valid point in the 6th, though there are probably a number of people in Syria who don't actively encourage their government's insanity and just want to be left alone, as civilized people tend to do when you can find them. So bombing the entire country probably isn't the best plan. Though it's certainly better than the one we're following now (probably Coulter's real point behind the paragraph).

-------------------------

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...12500&o=ANN001

Muhammad Cartoons: Muslim Bites Dog

by Ann Coulter
Posted Feb 15, 2006

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.

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."

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 (see the full gallery below). 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.

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.)

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?

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Koran'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.

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!

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[pharmaclid]

It's like watching the Crusades. I guess history really does repeat itself.

[DoctorDulitlBest]

Perhaps Ms. Coulter does not realize that the first (and only) time that article 5. of the NATO treaty has been implemented, war was waged on a muslim country.

[ExpodoDop]

It's Ann Coulter. Does anyone care what she says? Please raise your hand if you do.

I question the sanity of anyone who would make her comments the center-piece of their own political beliefs.

[makemoneyonli]

Paragraph #3:
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.Tulsa Race Riot
Detroit riot
LA 1992
Us other folk find other excuses to riot.

[Diondra]

Glad as hell all this war stuff isn't about Islam. You know...like a crusade or something...

[bmwservis]

I have to wonder if she's not right on the $$ with this comment.

A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."

Really. Violence and murder seems to be the muslim answer to any and every problem doesn't it ?

I mean they ARE at war with their neighbors almost everywhere they ARE. Why is that ? Because Islam is a religion of peace ?

Hey, I really don't understand this crap.

[excholza]

I have to wonder if she's not right on the $$ with this comment.

A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."

Look at how many wars the US has been in. Look at how many "Low Intensity Conflicts" the US has been in. Will you also start to make generatlizations about the US based upon that?

Really. Violence and murder seems to be the muslim answer to any and every problem doesn't it ?

We could say the same for the US, right?

[Trissinas]

Look at how many wars the US has been in. Look at how many "Low Intensity Conflicts" the US has been in. Will you also start to make generatlizations about the US based upon that?

We could say the same for the US, right?

I guess we could.

I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to compare our conflicts with the conflicts of 10 or 15 countries always fighting one religion based war with one neighbor or another. I mean we have wars. They end. These muslims seem to have to have a war or some major conflict going at all times.

I don't know. I'm certainly not an authority on it or anything. I see how they're behaving over a (admittedly stupid) cartoon and have to shake my head and wonder

Good gawd. Be sure and walk on eggshells around muslims. You DON'T want to cause them even a minor irritation. Hell, they'd probably break your neck if they had some split ends or a hangnail

[Indidockobeni]

I guess we could.

I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to compare our conflicts with the conflicts of 10 or 15 countries always fighting one religion based war with one neighbor or another. I mean we have wars. They end. These muslims seem to have to have a war or some major conflict going at all times.

The US has probably fought more wars and low intensity conflicts and covert operations than any other country on the planet.

You have to wonder which countries the US has not fought any such engagements with.

I don't know. I'm certainly not an authority on it or anything. I see how they're behaving over a (admittedly stupid) cartoon and have to shake my head and wonder

Good gawd. Be sure and walk on eggshells around muslims. You DON'T want to cause them even a minor irritation. Hell, they'd probably break your neck if they had some split ends or a hangnail

Well, people may make of Islam whatever they do, however, I don't think it's fair (read: I think it is biased) to say that Islam is militant because there are a great many conflicts where Muslims are involved. If you want to judge them on a case-by-case basis, I think you would see it takes a way a lot of that force.


Israel - Palestinians: Israel grabbed their land. Who would not fight after having their land grabbed?

Pakistan - India: Again they fight over what I see as an Indian land grab. Kashmir is overwhlemingly Muslim, and I believe Jammu is as well, so India is just abusing their power as a larger country over Pakistan in order to take a territory that should go to Pakistan.

Russia - Chechnya: A conflict that has been going on for several centuries, again involving a land grab. The Russians came down into Chechnya as they came into Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, China and other countries and has grabbed some land. Naturally the Chechens are resisting that.

US - Iran: Look at how we and the British government toppled their civilian government in 1953, and replaced that with a dictator (the Shah) who resorted to torture and barred freedom of speech, press and assembly.


There are some cases where the Islammic side is just undeniably wrong, such as in the Sudan. However, I sympathize a great deal with the Muslims who are victimized just because they are weaker than their foes.