Ann Coulter hit the nail right on the head...

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Written by Ann Coulter
February 8, 2006



As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims — for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.

The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.

The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.

Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey — maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.

Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates — that's disgusting.)

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?


http://www.anncoulter.org/
__________________________________________________________________________________

Ann Coulter said:
Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey — maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

:bravo:Ann Coulter
 
Last edited:
But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?

I reckon I might try being a muslim liberal for a change :)! But seriously 5.56, are there evil things in the world you don't compare with liberals?
 
Does anyelse get this?

Its very hypocritical for Ann Coulter to be making comments about the violence of Islam and when a few years she made the following comment about the Islamic world:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

Gee Ann, Replace "Christanity" with "Islam" and you sound just like al-Qaeda.

I cannot stand this person. All she is good for is hate, and there's enough of it in the world without her.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
I cannot stand this person. All she is good for is hate, and there's enough of it in the world without her.

It is a shame she is so tempermental and fanatical. She makes good points sometimes, but they're often lost in hatefilled rants. She'd be awesome, I think, if she were on prozac or something.
 
calm down.

This is a trend of the age with bad Internet.
Her correct evaluation only by a short sentence is impossible.
Anyway,read her book at libraly.
Internet is inferior to book by the point of raising a consistent
opinion.
 
I also think she needs to read up on her history
We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.
Well, for most of World War II, the US avoided bombing civilian areas. We tried to hit the industrial base while leaving the civilian areas alone. The British did most of the civilian bombings. Only after the US lost huge numbers of airmen did we abandon our doctrine of pin point bombing in WWII.

I think a lot of us forget that change never comes easy and fast in religion. History shows that Christians did horrible things against anyone who spoke out against Christianity way back when. Need I remind people that thousands of Jews were killed because it was thought that they started the plague. It took some time, but Christianity shook a lot of its violent ways.

Until the internet popped up in Saudi Arabia, the west had no idea what the Muslims were really doing. Now we get a front line view on some of the extremist views there. There is a lot of pressure for them to change, and I believe they will. However, we cannot apply our microwave society's ideals of change now now now. Give them time.

Look at the good old USA. We were founded in 1776; we did not "eliminate" slavery until the Civil War. Women started to get voting and other rights until 1869 in Wyoming and did not get it nation wide until 1920. Let us not forget that blacks did not receive their full rights until the 1950's. The lesson is huge societal changes take time. So calm down all you bashers of Islam, it is completely ignorant to demand and expect change to happen over a few years. Change will ultimately happen over generations
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I reckon the answer to these latest problems would be to close down the "easy acces news". Suddenly you get to look in the kitchens of people who don't understand but do judge. 1500 years of Khalifs and feudalism will get other perspectives then 500 years of enlightenment and capitalism.
People are different and all of a sudden we see what they do and vice versa. Our vieuws are read, heard by them and gets them upset. They have been beheading people for hundreds of years. We have been mocking religion for the past few decades. And all of a sudden they think we mock them and we think they a beheading savages....... Just quit with broadcasting everything and the problems will melt away.
 
Is it just more or is the line between fanatical Muslim and moderate Muslim being increasingly blurred, if not erased all together? It's a ****ing cartoon and they just proved the stereotypes about Islam in the West correct. Religion of peace? Please, both Christianity and Islam were spread through violence, conquest, convert or die methods. The difference between the two now is that I don't see many Christians killing women and children then turning around and claiming that their religion is one of peaceful co-existance. Actions speak louder than words and in this case you have violent actions on the part of the fanatics and inaction amongst the moderates. No denunciations of the violence against Europeans following these cartoons (and by following I mean five months later. Is this really about the cartoons or did they protest first then find go searching for a reason?), no denunciations of the beheading of Westerners in the name of Allah (which should be blesphemy if Islam is truly a religion of peace.) All the West sees is a cartoon, five months of nothing, rioting, looting and other acts of violence, and Muslims government encouraging these riots while demanding an apology from Denmark and punishment against those who dared to depict Islam as a nation of violence.
 
Very good post about Coulter

mmarsh said:
Does any(one) else get this?

Its very hypocritical for Ann Coulter to be making comments about the violence of Islam and when a few years she made the following comment about the Islamic world:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

Gee Ann, Replace "Christianity" with "Islam" and you sound just like AL-Qaeda.

I cannot stand this person. All she is good for is hate, and there's enough of it in the world without her.
Ann Coulter is so full of hate that if she were to bite a rattle snake, the snake would die. She is this way when she discusses liberals and democrats so why should she be any different when she talks about someone that does NOT have her beliefs.
 
I always wonder how it would be like to have a dinner with her. Would she be relaxed or as uptight as she appears nowadays? Just once would I like to have a look behind her veil and see what makes her ricketick go faster!
 
Am I the only person who is talking out of their ass here? I don't actually know how this lady is or even what she looks like, that's how much attention I pay to the news, or at least the people in it, if I wanted to get my information distorted and out of context I will turn on the TV, usually I just stick to reading the blogs or the BBC.
 
Damien435 said:
Am I the only person who is talking out of their ass here? I don't actually know how this lady is or even what she looks like, that's how much attention I pay to the news, or at least the people in it, if I wanted to get my information distorted and out of context I will turn on the TV, usually I just stick to reading the blogs or the BBC.
In order: Yes you are....if you watch ANY Sunday or evening political talk show you couldn't miss seeing her...most people who resort to blogs for their news are usually as dumb as rocks when it comes to the news...BBC has some of the most slanted news about America of any non US news organization.
 
I kind of made up the blogs part because it sounded cool when I was typing, in actuality I really only get my news through these forums because everything I see on the news is ultimately stupid, has no effect on me or the nation as a whole, and is blown out of proportion. Like this Cheney issue.
 
Damien435 said:
if I wanted to get my information distorted and out of context I will turn on the TV, usually I just stick to reading the blogs or the BBC.

Haha:smile:. I'm sure blogs and the BBC website have their share of information distortion and removal from context aswell.
 
Back
Top