The Coulter Challenge!!!

[Machjo]

In Japan and Germany, for the most part the people were behind their government. In this war against terror, many Afghans want nothing to do with either us or the Taliban. So what will killing them bring us?

Also, she's saying that we need to war not with a country, but with a society. First off, society is a little vague in this context, since it doesn't necessarily follow national boundaries.

Now she mentions bombing their countries, so I take it she's defining it in terms of majority-Muslim countries? If so, that would mean all the Middle East, North Africa, and even parts of North-Western China, and Indonesia, among other places.

Is she really proposing a declaration of war against about one billion Muslims, with Pakisatan being a nuclear power?

does she realize the scope of the war she's proposing? That would be a world war. And since it would e a war against a society, even many Muslims in the US itself, as loyal as they may be to the US, could likely revolt. This is not about fighting an organized political entity, but a society, a worldwide religious community not necessarily restricted to any political entity or national boundary.

It's like comparing apples to elephants.

 

[CDNBear]

In Japan and Germany, for the most part the people were behind their government. In this war against terror, many Afghans want nothing to do with either us or the Taliban. So what will killing them bring us?

An end.

There were times when countries, who now adore us, denounced us for the bombing we levied upon them.

Funny that, freedom from tyranny, oft over shadows the long ugly road to it.

Also, she's saying that we need to war not with a country, but with a society. First off, society is a little vague in this context, since it doesn't necessarily follow national boundaries.

I took her comments as we need to break the whole of the Islamic facsist movement.

Now she mentions bombing their countries, so I take it she's defining it in terms of majority-Muslim countries? If so, that would mean all the Middle East, North Africa, and even parts of North-Western China, and Indonesia, among other places.

So long as they attack us, we should bomb them back to the stone age. As many of these places are already there, bomb them back to amoebic life.

Is she really proposing a declaration of war against about one billion Muslims, with Pakisatan being a nuclear power?

No, she refering to countries with whom we are at odds with militarily.

does she realize the scope of the war she's proposing? That would be a world war. And since it would e a war against a society, even many Muslims in the US itself, as loyal as they may be to the US, could likely revolt. This is not about fighting an organized political entity, but a society, a worldwide religious community not necessarily restricted to any political entity or national boundary.

True, hence my opinions in the Canadian/Muslim thread.

It's like comparing apples to elephants.

Quite.

 

[Machjo]

An end.



So long as they attack us, we should bomb them back to the stone age. As many of these places are already there, bomb them back to amoebic life.

Now this is where we run into problems. Who is 'they'? If you mean terrorists, then that's what we're doing now. Once we identify them as terrorists and locate their position, we bomb them. However, I got the impression from the video that by 'they' she meant not terrorists, but Muslims. This would include practically every Afghan. So do we simply nuke Afghanistan? Much more efficient, don't you think?

Also, she made it clear in the video that she was talking about their society and made it clear that this society involves many countries. She's clearly talking about Muslim society,a nd as such she's essentially referring to a declaration of war with about one billion people living in practically every country on earth.

She's comparing it to Japan and Germany, yet it's like apples and blue whales. Even she acknowledges the difference by stating that it would involve more countries, but so be it. Does she really understand that she's proposing an all out world war? Scarily enough, I think she does.

 

[CDNBear]

Now this is where we run into problems. Who is 'they'? If you mean terrorists, then that's what we're doing now. Once we identify them as terrorists and locate their position, we bomb them. However, I got the impression from the video that by 'they' she meant not terrorists, but Muslims. This would include practically every Afghan.

You can take her as broadly as you want, I didn't get the same message.

So do we simply nuke Afghanistan? Much more efficient, don't you think?

Yep.

Also, she made it clear in the video that she was talking about their society and made it clear that this society involves many countries. She's clearly talking about Muslim society,and as such she's essentially referring to a declaration of war with about one billion people living in practically every country on earth.

That's your perception. I took her commentary to mean Afghanistan and Iraq. Although she uses sweeping generalizations, I think she was specifically referring to those two countries, and/or any country that would harbour terrorist groups.

She's comparing it to Japan and Germany, yet it's like apples and blue whales. Even she acknowledges the difference by stating that it would involve more countries, but so be it.

Yes, and I acknowledge the differences as well. But the tactic is still very much viable, and here's why.

In WWII (LWF), we bombed their society, thus breaking their collective will to defend their homeland. This couldn't be more then in the case of mainland Japan. Where the people were willing to die for a God like Emperor. The two atomic bombs effectively annihilated their collective will and for the most part, their ability to strategically defend themselves from invasion.

As for Germany and much of occupied Europe. It's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of countries occupied by the Nazi's were not sympathetic to their regime. But it may surprise you to know that not every country they marched into, held them in such low regards. For example, the north of Holland, also known as Friesland, absolutely embraced the Nazi's. Their daily press condemned the imperialist forces and proclaimed Nazism as if it were divine.

But I digress...

Like you indicated, radical Islam is not the all encompassing belief of all Muslims. Very much like Nazism was not embraced by every nation Hitlers Troops crushed into submission.

In that regard, they share a close similarity. And is so doing, they can be defeated in much the same way. With the same tactics achieving very much the same result.

Whereas we bombed civilian populations in Europe and the Pacific, to not only slow the enemies war machine. We also slowly whittled away the collective resistance and urge to fight from the general populace. And in many circumstances, caused them to turn on those they eventually came to understand, brought this hardship upon.

This is where we will win this war, if we prescribe to the same tactic. We bomb away there collective will, we bomb them until they turn on those that are actually the cause of their plight.

This isn't without it's inherent risks, there is always the possibility of blowback. Which is what we have seen outside the Middle East in the recent past.

But this too will dwindle with military pressure.

Does she really understand that she's proposing an all out world war? Scarily enough, I think she does.

I still think you misunderstand.

 

[Machjo]

Then clearly she doesn't know how to choose her words well when they can be interpreted so differently. She uses way too many pronouns instead of more clearly defined terms of 'we', and 'they', thus leaving her words wide open to interpretation. Not the sign of an academic in the least. A true academic does not allow his words to be so vaguely expressed.

 

[CDNBear]

Then clearly she doesn't know how to choose her words well when they can be interpreted so differently.

Maybe she does, knowing she'll create controversy?

She uses way too many pronouns instead of more clearly defined terms of 'we', and 'they', thus leaving her words wide open to interpretation.

Agreed.

Not the sign of an academic in the least. A true academic does not allow his words to be so vaguely expressed.

True, but I don't think anyone confuses her for an academic...lol.

 

[AnnaG]

I'd like to know what she means by 'destroy their society', especially in the context of this video where she talks about not worrying so much about civilian casualties.

Unless I missed something there, it's pretty bad.

I think she does that sort of stuff just for the shock value. I doubt she'd carry through if she actually had the power to do it.
At least I hope it's just for the shock value. I mean she does work for Faux. lol

 

[AnnaG]

Not at all. Were the Allies fascists?

Her comments are a mirror of many tacticians, a great many of which are Western, and I have repeated their sentiments numerous times, because they're sound.

To win a war, you must break the will of the people. As we did with Nazi Germany and Japan. We broke the collective will of the people, in a far shorter time span, because we didn't get hung up on civilian casualties. They were considered the consequences of war.

What we have today, is three block warfare. I do not believe it is a viable tactic in this style of combat theater. Which is what she is alluding to.

As I described in my last response.

You missed something.

Well, Les does think that if you want to combat something effectively, you have to get right into the mud with it and beat it on its own terms. I don't think that's always the case, but he's probably right some of the time.

 

[AnnaG]

Funny that, freedom from tyranny, oft over shadows the long ugly road to it.

I took her comments as we need to break the whole of the Islamic facsist movement.

Yup, freedom can do that. It's pretty powerful.

Um, I don't think that Muslim extremists are so much fascist as theocratic with a bias towards their own theological interpretation. But there's not much difference, in effect.

 

[AnnaG]

Now this is where we run into problems. Who is 'they'? If you mean terrorists, then that's what we're doing now. Once we identify them as terrorists and locate their position, we bomb them. However, I got the impression from the video that by 'they' she meant not terrorists, but Muslims. This would include practically every Afghan. So do we simply nuke Afghanistan? Much more efficient, don't you think?

Also, she made it clear in the video that she was talking about their society and made it clear that this society involves many countries. She's clearly talking about Muslim society,a nd as such she's essentially referring to a declaration of war with about one billion people living in practically every country on earth.

She's comparing it to Japan and Germany, yet it's like apples and blue whales. Even she acknowledges the difference by stating that it would involve more countries, but so be it. Does she really understand that she's proposing an all out world war? Scarily enough, I think she does.

Everyone's entitled to their flights of fantasy. For one thing, it's not affordable. Especially after G Dumbya spent so much on Iraq. lol

 

[CDNBear]

Well, Les does think that if you want to combat something effectively, you have to get right into the mud with it and beat it on its own terms.

I completely agree.

I don't think that's always the case, but he's probably right some of the time.

Diversity makes the world awesome.

 

[CDNBear]

Yup, freedom can do that. It's pretty powerful.

Um, I don't think that Muslim extremists are so much fascist as theocratic with a bias towards their own theological interpretation. But there's not much difference, in effect.

Agreed.

 

[AnnaG]

Then clearly she doesn't know how to choose her words well when they can be interpreted so differently. She uses way too many pronouns instead of more clearly defined terms of 'we', and 'they', thus leaving her words wide open to interpretation. Not the sign of an academic in the least. A true academic does not allow his words to be so vaguely expressed.

I think a lot of what she says is simply for the shock value, and that shocks people who think the "if you aren't my friend, you are my enemy" attitude is simply ridiculous. It is, as people have enemies, friends, and acquaintances they don't know well enough to call "friend" but aren't exactly enemy either.She's an attention hog.

 

[Icarus27k]

Yeah... what was the deal with that Coulter thing anyway? Inviting her to do things.

Canada can have her if they really want her.

What did Canada ever do to us to deserve a visit from Coulter? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

 

[ironsides]

She was invited by the school to whip those spineless students into citizens Canada could be proud of. You may have freedom of speech, but only if someone is talking about something your interested in and or like it seems. No one is forcibly anybody to take her literally.

 

[missile]

Used to be on her mailing list because I thought she was amusing,but realised she really means what she says &is just another nutcase. Did you know she was a centerfold in Penthouse?[many years ago,of course]:lol:

 

[Walter]

Used to be on her mailing list because I thought she was amusing,but realised she really means what she says &is just another nutcase. Did you know she was a centerfold in Penthouse?[many years ago,of course]:lol:

She never posed for Penthouse or any other skin mag, although I wouldn't mind seeing her nude; I love the thin ones.

 

[missile]

I should have known you'd have every single issue:lol:

 

[Colpy]

She never posed for Penthouse or any other skin mag, although I wouldn't mind seeing her nude; I love the thin ones.

Me too.

 

[Walter]

I should have known you'd have every single issue:lol:

Love the letters.