Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« In "the other Naples" -- on the Gulf | Main | The moderates in this whole cartoon thing »

Friday, February 10, 2006

Ann Coulter Calls Muslims "Ragheads"

Note to readers: I was there anyway, so why not write about the following?

I dropped by the Omni Shoreham Hotel in DC this afternoon where CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) 2006 is being held. Here are verbatim highlights from comments Ann Coulter made during a speech and accompanying question-and-answer session, both of which I digitally recorded:

“Iran is, is, an Iranian newspaper is holding a contest for cartoons on the Holocaust, but So far, the only submissions have been from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the New York Times. The one notable exception to the Muslims with bipolar disorder, um, is in Iraq, I note, so I guess this war for oil has some side benefits. Muslims are the only group who kill because they’re angry people have called them violent. Bowing and scraping to savages, I think we’re supposed to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the claim that the Koran prohibits depictions of Mohammed, I have documentation to back that up, the NATO treaty, um, Syria torched and burned to the ground the Danish embassy last week, and according to everyone, according to Condoleeza Rice, according to the prime minister of Denmark, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the Syrian government was behind it. McClellan said, for example, we will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support. I think we have to do a whole lot more than ‘hold them responsible’ for a state-sponsored attack on Danish territory, the Danish embassy. By the terms of the NATO treaty we have an obligation along with most of European nations to attack Syria right now. Or is NATO, like conventions of civilized society, inapplicable when Muslims are involved? They complain about unilateral action. Well, according to the terms of the NATO treaty, written by Dean Acheson and a bunch of Democrats, Spain, France, Germany, Greece, they all have an obligation to attack Syria right now. So saddle up, Mister Ghami." [surname spelled phonetically].

Regarding whether Iran has nuclear weapons:
“Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but they’re certainly acting like they do. What if they start having [several words unintelligible at this point on the recording] bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? If you don’t want to get shot by the police, don’t point a gun at them. Or, or as I think our motto should be post-9/11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"


Note: Left-wing blogger Max Blumenthal provides a less-than-perfect verbatim rendering of her remarks here. With some speakers, not taping their remarks for transcription later is dangerous. Obviously, when you’re not absolutely certain the speaker used the exact words you attribute to her, you should not use quotation marks, as Blumenthal has. Nonetheless, Blumenthal clearly got the substance of Coulter’s remarks right.

By the way, please hold your hate email about Coulter: I’m just the messenger in this case.

Earlier in the day, I was in the hallway at the Omni Shoreham and I saw conservative antifeminist icon Phyllis Schlafly walking up a set of stairs with someone who really, really, really looked like online exhibitionist Ana Marie Cox, formerly of wonkette.com fame, just a few feet away on the same staircase. A few seconds later Michelle Malkin (whom, if memory serves once called Cox a sleazy skank, or words to that effect)
rushed past Ms. Cox/The Cox Lookalike in order to give Schlafly a hug. If it really was Cox and Malkin had seen her (or vice versa), would a bloody catfight have broken out right there in front of me?
It’s a hard call. Cox is feisty and determined, but Malkin seems better fed.

Crossposted at vadum.blogspot.com, America's foremost lonely little attention-seeking vanity blog.

Posted by Matthew Vadum on February 10, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834733bed53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ann Coulter Calls Muslims "Ragheads":

Comments

As someone recently said -this ain't no clash of cultures, it's a clash of prejudices.

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-10 7:27:00 PM


With great minds like Coulter, is it any wonder that the American right has caused a civil war in Iraq, *multiplied* the number of Islamic terrorists, caused the election of Hamas in Palestine, and caused the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

The right is to foreign policy what the left is to the economy.

When will they both realise that government is not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-02-10 10:26:58 PM


If one of Osama bin Laden's objectives was to create hatred and prejudice against Muslims, then I would say he has succeeded. It has been quite a simple process to cause specific grievances against identified groups or leaders into a general seething dislike of the Islamic world and everything about it. Even the most basic facts such as the distinction between types of Islam, the non-Arab nature of the Iranian people, the lack of real democracy in Iran, are obscured nowadays behind this smokescreen of hate looking for any convenient target in reprisal for 9-11. And the Muslim world does not help its own cause by failing to pick up on repeated requests by any number of western moderates, even high-ranking conservatives, to make a clearer statement of denunciation of terrorism. They always come back with ambivalent statements that attempt to equate terrorism with "Zionism" and American "imperialism" which many just can't accept.

At some point, all of these efforts are probably going to fail, because hate is always a more successful virus than tolerance. As more of them start to hate us, more of us will start to hate them, until a critical mass is reached, and then vast acts of aggression will become almost instinctive. This is probably what many want, an end to the moral ambiguity of trying to share an increasingly crowded planet when there is no hope of any general agreement about basic cultural values (freedoms vs orthodoxy, for example).

Muslims should realize the onus is on them, given the enormous crimes of 9-11 and terrorism in general. While there may be some moral guilt on both sides, the greater portion is on their side, and they need to act to protect their security, to quote Osama bin Laden's menacing phrase. I say it not out of menace but concern for the future of the world. I would not wish to see thousands or even millions dying in a war brought on by the calculations of a few madmen in a cave.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2006-02-10 11:16:17 PM


Nobody should know better than you robert,you're a liberal.

Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-02-11 12:24:34 AM


Soooooooooooo........during WW 2 we called the enemy Krauts and Japs and Nips etc etc...Big deal...

This is much ado about nothing...

Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-02-11 12:55:49 AM


Western Canadian,
When you call me a liberal, I'm guessing you mean someone who favours the relaxing of social traditions and a significant role for the state in matters of economics and social justice. I am not a 'liberal' in this sense. I dislike such 'liberals' very much.

In fact, I dislike conservatives because of their resemblance to these 'liberals.' Conservatives also support a significant role for the state, except in foreign affairs instead of economics. Where the left supports unarmed bureaucrats who sign welfare cheques, the right supports armed bureaucrats in uniforms who shoot and coerce people (i.e. cops and soldiers).

I support no significant for the state in anything. Only minimal roles in limited realms.

I am an enemy of the left and the right, of socialists (or 'liberals') and conservatives, of welfare statists and warfare statists alike.

I am a liberal in this sense: I support individual liberty and limited government.

I am a classical liberal or a Wilfred Laurier liberal. My views were represented by the Liberal Party of Canada until Lester B. Pearson made that party a soft socialist party. Then Trudeau made the party outright tyrannical with the War Measures Act, the NEP, and gun control.

Now no major party supports my views. In politics in Canada, the defence of individual liberty is dead. (As it is in the United States.)

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-02-11 2:11:09 AM


Actually, although I emphasized Coulter's jarring "raghead" remark, I thought her call for an attack on Syria was more interesting to ponder. (On second thought, I should have used a headline like "Coulter Calls For Flattening Of Syria.")
If she has it right that
1) the attack on the Danish embassy, i.e. sovereign Danish territory, was sanctioned by Syria (in which case it would unquestionably constitute an act of war under international law),
2) and that the NATO treaty requires the U.S. and various European nations to defend its members (including Denmark),
then it would appear she is correct in saying NATO nations should be taking military action against Syria in aid of Denmark.
Does anyone have any thoughts on her call to bomb Syria?
(Please, no stupid people. You know who I mean, truewest.)

Posted by: Matthew Vadum | 2006-02-11 5:40:38 AM


In reply to Matthew Vadum, most certainly, the attack on the Danish embassy in Syria was orchestrated by the Syrian government.

In those countries (Syria, Iran, Egpyt etc) there is no such thing as a public demonstration by the public; no citizen would dare to take such an action. These demonstrations were organized by the gov't, which supplied the target, the flags, the people, everything. As I've said repeatedly, the agenda of the riots in the ME is to incite the people against the West, by any means possible, to prevent them from focusing on the emerging democracy in the ME. The old guard in Syria, Iran..don't want to lose their totalitarian powers.

As for the West, NATO attacking Syria - that would HELP the agenda of Syria, Iran. That's exactly what Syria/Iran wants. Iran has been trying to get the West (or Israel) to attack it - flouting its nuclear ambitions, claiming the Holocaust didn't happen and on and on. It WANTS the West to attack it, because that is one aspect of its strategy to prevent the rise of democracy in its own country. The US didn't bite; it referred the nuclear matter to the UN, which will mutter and stutter and do nothing.
Israel did nothing.

Then - this cartoon situation. The original cartoons were legitimate political cartoons, asking people to consider the huge gap between their stated Islamic beliefs of their peaceful religion and their actual behaviour of bombing trains, buses, restaurants etc. There was no reaction in Denmark. Then, a radical imam took the cartoons, added three vicious fake ones, and went to the ME. They were rapidly picked up by the political strategists there - to use to incite the population against the West (and against democracy).

So- the political strategists mounted large protests and etc, etc...with ONE agenda. Propaganda. Manipulation of their citizens, to keep them in a high state of hostility to the West, and ..to prevent their desire for democracy. To prevent them from thinking. Keep them emotional and irrational. That was the agenda.

As I said - Iran's nuclear taunts didn't work; the West didn't attack; it diverted the reaction to the UN. The Holocaust taunts didn't work. But, these cartoons have been extremely useful.

Now- if the West were to attack Syria over this Danish bombing - that would be EXACTLY what Syria and Iran want!!!! They want the West to attack. They want the diversion from that creeping, emerging democracy that is rearing its head in the ME. They want their people to move out of any reasoning capacity, any capacity for talk and discussion about democracy...and stop all thought..in an emotional mob-process of Hate the West.

So- no. The West should not do as Syria and Iran want. It shouldn't fulfill THEIR need to manipulate THEIR citizens and prevent democracy in the region...by going to war.

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-11 6:18:55 AM


I wonder what happened to the inquiry about the assassination of the president of Lebanon? Wasn't it a feat of Syria?

The Nato treaty is valid. To be enacted, it would need the request of Denmark to take action against Syria. I doubt it will happen since there were no casualties. Most likely, Syria will have to pay to rebuild the ambassy.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-11 7:41:29 AM


As Ann’s recent “raghead” remarks clearly demonstrate, she does indeed go over the top in an effort to rattle PC sensitivities. These shock tactics certainly grab attention. Kind of like the Muhammad cartoons.

In upping-the-ante with her rhetoric Ann risks becoming a caricature herself. But then in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon imbroglio, hordes of Muslim caricatures took to the streets to shriek in a manner that makes Ann seem like the quintessence of civility.

Are there screaming regiments of Anns on the American right burning effigies of Ahmadinejad, torching embassies and chanting death slogans? No there aren’t. There is a solitary colorful character who stands out on account of her willingness to shock conventional proprieties.

Look ... we have just witnessed the taboos of Islam being acknowledged by editors and politicians throughout the West who willingly tacked a “sensitivity caveat” onto freedom-of- expression as a direct result, I might add, of mass hysteria and naked threat. Apparently being “out there” with your rage works (note to Ann detrators). Bill Clinton, Jack Straw and others are up on the bike back-peddling with the best of them. Notice that none of these champions of respect had even a whimper of outrage when art exhibits featuring the Christian cross dunked in urine and an elephant dung portrait of the virgin Mary were doing the rounds. If Muslims had been as restrained as Christians in the face of blasphemy, we would never heard a peep out of these upstanding folk and editors would have been falling over themselves to re-publish.

Yes - mob hysteria and intimidation works.

Now that increasing numbers of conservatives are set on “outing” Ann as a closet something-or-other-unpleasant, doubtless their high minded civility will be noted by the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who will welcome such dhimmi-like concessions by moving immediately in the direction of peace and reconciliation talks.

I’m not sure what is worse - the naked confrontational barbs of a Coulter or the posturing of the righteous in response to perceived “excesses”.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2006-02-11 8:43:40 AM


Robert Seymour,

Let me help you find yourself.
As you describe your politics, it's clear to me that you are an Objectivist.
For reference to that political philosophy, I suggest you visit the site of Any Rand or read some of her fiction and non fiction works.
I think you will like her.
If you wish you can listen one of her associates lecture on my own site (side bar)'introduction to Objectivism' in .ra "real player" format.
You say no political party represents your views, Sounds to me like Objectivism most closely fits you. I know I like it a lot. It's based on logic .. a rare thing these days.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-13 6:00:06 PM


Regarding Ann coulter using the term 'ragheads' ... who cares ... really?

And McLelland, her IQ dwarfs yours.

She is rich, famous, smart, brave and good looking.
What are you?

Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-13 6:01:43 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.