I find it very troubling that conservative commentators are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies.
During her standing-room-only speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Ann Coulter made some rather blunt remarks about Muslims that have offended listeners on the left and right alike.
Yesterday on The American Spectator website, in an article by David Hogberg entitled “Not Funny,” Ms. Coulter was even tarred as a “racist,” and castigated for damaging the “conservative movement” with her incendiary rhetoric. She also was blamed for “ruining” this year’s CPAC.
As someone who attended CPAC and heard Ms. Coulter’s speech, let me begin by flatly denying that Ms. Coulter’s speech “ruined” CPAC. There were a multitude of intelligent and informative speakers at this year’s CPAC — including Dick Cheney, John Bolton, George Will, Phyllis Schlafly, Mark Krikorian, John Fund, Ramesh Ponnuru, Oliver North, Gov. Rick Perry (TX), Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY), Newt Gingrich, and many others — whose contributions to a robust political debate were not lessened in the least by what Ms. Coulter said, or how she said it. CPAC is not a one-woman show. To suggest otherwise is, itself, a denigration of the conservative movement.
Moreover, the expressions of shock! shock! at Ms. Coulter’s incendiary remarks ring especially hollow, given that Ms. Coulter is the author of the most (in)famous commentary on 9/11: “We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” Nothing she said on Friday — in which she referred to our Islamic enemies by the derogatory term “rag heads” — compares to this statement.
I agree, of course, that it is not nice to refer to people with crude ethnic epithets. I also agree that Ms. Coulter’s remarks, if broadly construed, are potentially unfair to Muslims who do not share our enemies’ values and ambitions.
Nevertheless, only the most abstruse, self-righteous person (which includes the two young men who challenged Ms. Coulter during the question and answer period) would believe that Ms. Coulter was referring to “all” Muslims in her remarks. She quite clearly was addressing the radical Islamists who have declared war on the United States and its allies — and who are aggressively fighting that war, while we in the West debate the finer points of free speech.
Indeed, Ms. Coulter’s speech is the latest example of western political humor deemed offensive to Muslims that “sensitive” Westerners –- including conservatives who should know better –- rush to criticize, so as to demonstrate what decent people they are. Apparently, these Westerners believe that the way to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims is to show them how willing we are to demonize the very people who are standing up to the radical Islamist bullying and terrorism that is going on across the globe. How utterly naïve.
At the risk of being labelled a “racist” myself, I confess I find it very troubling that conservative commentators like Mr. Hogberg are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies. Let us not forget that these enemies, who are committed to a way of life that is antithetical to our own, have killed thousands of our fellow citizens and would gladly kill millions more.
How can it be that calling these enemies “rag heads” is so intolerable, but killing them by the hundreds and thousands in Iraq and elsewhere is deserving of praise? After all, we on the Right (and center) loudly applaud President Bush whenever he speaks of “destroying” our enemies. But Ann Coulter calling them “rag heads” is going too far? This is a ridiculous example of political correctness run amok. But “politically correct warfare” is an oxymoron, and a foolish and self-defeating way to fight a war.
I'm a conservative, Republican-voting straight white male. I do not see those who hold differing- even foolish- views as our "sworn enemies." Ann deserves to be called out on her comments.
Ann Coulter knows how to sell. There is always a bit of truth to her words, but her real goal is "shock and awe". Rag-head is wrong in the most fundamental battle of this war, both the insurgents and those we are trying to bring freedom to can be insulted this way, thus bringing these people together. The goal is to show the people of Iraq that we are on the same side, and comments like Ann's do nothing to help that.
I am a boarding school sophomore who never misses an Ann Coulter column. I agree with Dan that she knows how to sell, and she is certainly utilizing "shock and awe" tactics with comments like these. Nonetheless, I think that petty political correctness has become increasingly overwhelming. Everyone needs to relax a little bit. This is not to suggest that calling Iraqis "rag heads" is not offensive, but on the whole people, especially school administations (I know from experience) should allow people to speak their mind without having to constantly worry about the proper titles and phrases.
speaking my mind,
T Parks
I would hope the world could grow up a little and settle down regarding harsh remarks. The freedom of speech secures my right to not suffer the insecurities and rigidity of people who do not get the joke: the nasty, tasteless, insensitive, counter to what others think joke. I need Coulter to say these things to make me laugh, blush and relate my tasteless side to someone else. “Rag head” is insensitive. So is a chopped off head. I will stick to my offensive head, because the other extreme is painful, final, senseless…, and not very funny.
If the Iraqis think Ann Coulter and her language is the norm in America, it is because they are not listening very hard. They need to concentrate on things that are more important too, like the be-heading terrorists and not the rag-heading columnists.
Stop being offended and settle down, Dan. It will be all right. Besides, she is hot! Who listens to women anyway? (Laugh…it’s a joke!)
I am a loyal fan of Ms Coulter and in my opinion she has hit another home run. She is, as always, a carefully balanced political pundit, denigrating the enemy to the extent public decency allows and enought to give the liberals great joy at their new found focus for their vituperus attacks. The reaction of the "conservatives", that have jumped on the liberal attack bandwagon, are a grime indication of how profoundly the relentless propaganda of the liberal media have affected the collective thought process in the United States. I am however concerned that H.L. felt in imperative that he identify himself as a "Republican-voting straight white male." (sic) Is this then a slam against non-whites and gays? I also found Dan Behrens comments quite amusing. If President Bush had only known that all it would take to bring the two sides together was a few insults at a conservative function we could have saved the lives of hundreds of soliders.
Oh, and by the way Mr. Warshawsky I'm quickly becoming a fan of yours.
I understand Mr. Warshawsky's point in his commentary, however, I do not believe Ann Coulter needs to be defended. Ann is one of the few remaining activitists who still believe our nation, and our way of life are worth fighting for. What troubles true conservatives is the deference which is paid to radicals who want nothing more than the extermination of our culture, religion, social structure, indeed our way of life. The avowed mission of Islam is to dominate the world and eliminate the infidels. How much clearer could their objectives be? Yet we continue to court the notion of Islam as a religion of peace. The barbarians are no longer at the gates, they are established safely within it's walls. Thank you, Ms. Coulter for refusing to dumb down your message, or bow to the religion of political correctness. We need more people like Ann Coulter, we do not need to apologize for her.
comment to H.L.:
Ann was not referring to "those who hold differing- even foolish- views as our “sworn enemies.”".
She was referring to those who are actually our "sworn enemies". i.e. Radical Muslims who have
sworn to destroy America, kill Americans (and Jews and Europeans and basically anyone that is
not muslim). Those who hold differing- even foolish views, are merely democrats.
Ms. Coulter serves a valuable function in the Grand Debate: She pushes the envelope so that the tru colors of superficial people are revealed. It's so refreshing, a nice change from the weak-kneed, lily-livered RINOs that "just wish we could all get along" wimps. The Democrats have been out of power for more than ten years, but you sure can't tell from the way Washington is run.
We need more Ann Coulters.
Needing more Ann Coulters' is like the democrats needing more Howard Deans'. Is most if not all of what Ann has to say agreeable to Conservatives, YES. Do I agree with her position on issues, YES. Is there a way to do that and gain ground in the middle, where elections and policies are determined, YES. Will Ann Coulter ever help in a way Rush, Fox News, or others have, NO.
Although I do not believe the words of Ann Coulter can unite the Arab world, I do believe AL-Jareeza and Liberals would use her words to represent Conservatives, and by correlation a majority of Americans ; which, with all due respect Lt. Young, is not amusing to me. The question to ask is, "Should Ann be a spokesperson for Conservatism?, which I would have to say, no. Let the Democrats cater to the far left in Howard Dean hate speech, we will be bettter off with a positive approach, which Ms. Coulter rarely offers.
Once again, KUDOS to Ann Coulter! Ann speaks her mind and takes no prisoners. We need more people like her who refuse to bow to the rhinos, left-wing wimps and islamo-facists. Go get 'em, Ann!
If I was a terrorist sitting in a cave with Bin Laden reading about this
" controversy" about the
" innapropriate" use of the word "rag-head" , I'd say;
" Who but weak infidels would waste time and energy fighting each other over on what to call us while we are planning the next 9/11?
Aren't our enemies idiots? "
Thanks, Lt. Young. Your encouraging words are most appreciated!
rage heads is more appropriate
Racial epithets are, by definition, outside the bounds of civilized debate. The fact that Coulter was invited to CPAC is an endorsement of her views by the conservative establishment. As a conservative I find this deeply troubling. Mr. Warshawsky is confused if he thinks that it is Ann Coulter who is standing up to radical Islamist bullying. The people standing up to our enemies are the men and women with their boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan who risk their lives daily to kill terrorists as they train our Muslim allies to defend their own peeople. How does an epithet-spouting raconteur help their cause?
I agree with Dan Behrens we want to cultivate common cause with moderate Muslims, yet Ann Coulter also has a point that we need to be less timid identifying and labeling who our real enemies are. You can’t do that by mincing words. Saudi PR-men, accommodation-seeking politicians, and craven apologists, alike, have obscured the reality of Islam and its fanatic adherents. Islam has been presented as a religion of peace and the average Muslim as a moderate, neither of which matches reality.
Islam is not universally practiced as preached. Robert Spencer (http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/) has done a terrific job outlining where Islam is moderate and where it is not. It is moderate toward unbelievers and rabidly intolerant of paganism, atheism and apostasy. It tolerates Christians and Jews as peoples of the Book, but only insofar as we are subservient to Islam, live a debased condition, and with an expectation of our eventual conversion. Mohammed espoused a moderate philosophy only while in Mecca and having few followers. Spencer illustrates how that earlier and discredited moderation was dropped as soon as Mohammed was chased from his hometown. Mohammed was a vengeful and egotistical mystic who delighted in slaying those who’d disgraced him. On fleeing to Medina, he acquired a large following, power, and a decidedly immoderate policy of killing all pagans who refused submission following a single invitation to convert (starting with his former Meccans). On being defeated in battle, they would be slaughtered without further mercy. If Mohammed was this intolerant among his own people, how should we believe the religion he (an only he) established is more tolerant of ethnic strangers. We in the West have been given our warning, and can expect no further quarter; based on a textual decree that no further mercy is due.
It is moderate (i.e., liberal) Islam that is a departure from the mainstream, rather than its norm. Coincidental with the war on the West, war is also being waged by militant Muslims against moderates who believe Islam should be more spiritual and less militant. Mainstream Islam regards what we would call moderates as apostates. These deviants from doctrine must feel they are under siege from both sides. They are in something of a fix if they wish to remain moderate yet remain faithful to the teaching of their religion, which demands militant-jihad (jihad-fi-sabil); pretensions to ‘spiritual’ jihad not withstanding. The point of militant-jihad is to spread Islam and secure its permanent dominion (see: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20455). Doctrine does not admit of any fragmentation, dissention or retreat; such that even divergent sects must maintain the fiction there is but one Islam for all Muslims. For these reasons, for moderates to remain moderate they must deny Islam is inherently violent and represent it as a ‘universal religion of peace’, perverted only by a handful of ‘radicals’. They cannot join the stampede toward Muslim solidarity as moderates, and cannot remain faithful siding against militants. Under this pressure, some Muslims are intimidated into renunciation. Others are persuaded to it out of a rising tide of hostility toward their cherished religion and cultural identity. Yet, we can see some are braving this storm to maintain restraint. These need to know our concerns regarding their faith is not one of bigotry.
When Coulter said, “We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. … ”, she was referring to the many Muslims in every corner of the globe (including our own cities) who erupted into streets in praise of the 9/11 murders. She did not mean any Muslims who stood shocked and silent, or who denounced those acts. We all saw the same televised jubilation on network news and the rebroadcasts footage from Al Jazeera, and recognized from it that militant Islam has broad support and appeal. Have we remembered the thousands who died only to forget the support those murderers still receive from millions of ordinary Muslims? Recent support for beheadings, eruptions of Muslim radicals in Europe, and bullying accusations by Muslim jihadists here verify many of these supporters are still of the same mind: that Islam must be made supreme — through persuasion if possible, but with intimidation and force if necessary. The viewpoint built into Islam is that this combination (i.e., warn first, then strike) is ‘moderate’, and that it is resistance to Allah that is immoderate is clearly spelled out in the Koran.
I admire Coulter’s directness and wit, but she doesn’t always bother with fine distinctions like decent Muslims versus their head-decapitating, bomb-throwing, murdering co-religionists. She’s just not the type to mince words. She knows that blasts softened by kindnesses for the thin-skinned fail to make any mark. She is selective in her targets so far as they deserve her attacks. She exposes phonies and blasts enemies without mercy. That doesn’t make her a bigot, just an unapologetic culture-warrior. I won’t apologize or criticize Ann; she knows what she’s doing and, anyhow, she’d be the first tell any apologists to buzz off.
Torched embassies, violent riots, death threats… yes, "rage heads" sounds just about right…
There is a war going on; not just against terrorism, but against those on the left in this country. If you want to win a war, you don't play nice. Anne may not be PC, but she is honest, which is more than I can say for modern Democrats. The truth can be brutal, but it should be preferable to deliberate manipulative deceit.
I am surprised some Conservatives are prepared to hamstringing themselves by lending weight to the idea that speech is not "politically correct" or 'could be construed' as "racist" – to me this simply lends legitimacy to the Marxist ideology which is then used back at us. I propose we learn to counter the stifling orthodoxy rather than promoting it.
Also Islam is an enemy of the west. They must demonstrate they can get
along with us, the reverse will result in our destruction and dhimmitude.
Jim
I agree with Ann Coulter completely. The only way to win this war is to identify the enemy for who they are and then act decisively to defeat them. Trying to humanize or soft peddle these animals weakens our resolve and leads to capitulation or defeat. The only thing that I’m ashamed of is that the only real man left in the conservative movement is a woman.
The radical Muslim male is primarily afraid of two things: overwhelming force, and public
humiliation. Perhaps we might want to consult Ms. Coulter about how to continue to
degrade those who celebrate the slaughter of children, who plot the destruction of Israel,
who indoctrinate innocent students into hatred and suicide, and who have declared war
on liberty, civilization, and religious diversity. If some are offended by her choice of words,
perhaps the alternative of not being able to choose one's words is more palatable to those
people?
"1. I’m a conservative, Republican-voting straight white male. I do not see those who hold differing- even foolish- views as our 'sworn enemies.' Ann deserves to be called out on her comments.
Comment by H.L. | February 14, 2006"
Ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring-ring!
(Excuse me.)
There. That was my b.s. detector, going crazy. I just turned off the power, lest it go until its batteries get used up, or the contraption dies.
The gentleman doth protest too much.
He is surely not a conservative (unless Jonah Goldberg is one’s idea of a “conservative”) and it is unlikely that he is even a Republican.
Look at what he did. He misrepresented the target of Coulter’s barbs – people who support the wholesale slaughter of Americans – and replaced it with “those who hold differing- even foolish- views.” Such deception is not the verbal trickery of a “conservative Republican.” A New York Times editorial writer, would be more like it.
And were H.L. to somehow prove me wrong about him, my response would be, With “conservative, Republican-voting straight white male[s]” like that, who needs ragheads!
Bob Stapler starts his comments agreeing with Dan Behrens that we need to "…cultivate common cause…" with moderate muslims and then procedes to detail with great accuracy the entire religion is based on intolerance. Are we again supposed to bow to that kind of enemy and bare our necks. Mr. Stapler's thoughts are well researched ad porly constructed.
Actually Mr. Behrens I find you amusing because you apparently claim to be conservative yet you speak like a liberal. Like most liberals when your claims are countered with facts you change the story. Your comment was that Ann Coulter's comment would have the effect of "…bringing these people together…" now your concern is that her comments will be used to represent all Americans. Quite a difference and if they do take Ms Coulter's comments as representative of American thought, then that is a good thing.
Sorry about the typos in 23 the screen won't let me see all the text I type. It should say "and poorly constructed"
Much ado about nothing. Howard Dean can "hate Republicans and everything they stand for," newspapers in Islamic countries can print the most vile lies about Jews, and a Democrat Senator from West Virginian can use the "N" word on national TV, yet the world largely yawns. My only objection to "ragheads" is that Ann is usually more clever than that.
Very well said R. Bright
Mr. Warshawsky stated my position better than I could with his statement, "Of course, …… it is potential unfair to Muslims' who do not share our enemies values and ambitions." My point simply extended the unfair standard to dangerous. I am no expert on the Middle East, but I find it hard to believe many of its residents have enough information to distinguish Ann Coulter from most Americans. Reasonable people do not want to convert Muslims to Christians as Ann would have us do, but Ann really doesn't care how ignorant or negative such words would be, as long as it sells a book. This discussion has taken a different direction by making Ann Coulter's words equal to profiling. I am an ardent supporter of profiling to identify our enemies. My question would be how are we profiling those we are trying to free. Once Ann finds a way to describe the enemy without insulting the innocent, I am all for it.
" Once Ann finds a way to describe the enemy without insulting the innocent, I am all for it."
And once hundreds of thousands of muslims stop burning down businesses wich have nothing to do with the 12 cartoons, ( 70,000 pakistanies rioted violently, burned down many businesses and two person got killed in the commotion…and that is just one example out of more than 20 countries where that kind of uncivilised behavior is going on…) I will be all for calling them something else than rag-heads.
Until then, rag-head is in my opinion too mild a word to describe those intolerant savages who want to cut off the hands of the cartoon artists, those primitive barbarians that are destroyings millions of dollars of property, that are – let's be honnest – commiting acts of war; Attacking an Embassy is an act of war, especially when there is still people inside the Embassy…
Calling them rag heads is actually quite polite , quite respectfull considering what those animals are doing.
Mr. Behrens, you have once again changed direction. You casually insert into the discussion "My point simply extended the unfair standard to dangerous." as though going from unfair (being called "rag head" by one political pundit) to dangerous is a simple, logical and reasonable progression. Violence in the face of free speach, no matter how offensive, is certainly not logical, reasonable or acceptable. Especially from a religion that excels at intolerance, hate mongering and ethnic slurs, that are at the very least tacitly condoned by even the moderates of the religion. And to call it "self censorship in the face of those behaviors is much to soft. It is pure and simple extortion and intimidation by threat of violence. Also, I think it is safe to say that Ann Coulter has sold enough books (three best sellers in print I think) that book sales is not a big priority for her. And as far as Middle East muslims and their inability to distinguish one political pundit from the rest of the United States (because there are parts of the American continent that don't belong to the United States) all I can say is…how insulting and patronizing. You certainly have distingushed between moderate and radical muslims yet you are so arrogant that you treat the entire Middle East like bumbling fools! Well I have a news flash for you…some of them bumbled right into the Twin Towers. It is time to drop the liberal hysterics and take those rag heads seriously
How do you suppose the word "rag-head" translates in Arabic or Pashto or Dari or whatever Middle Eastern language we're concerned about? If English is your second language, what do you derive from someone's use of the term "rag-head"? We really wouldn't know that such a term would be considered derogatory to the average Arab without having someone from our culture tell them they should take offense to it. And further, to argue over Ann's use of such an epithet seems almost inane in light of the current problems facing us from the Middle East.
There are people who are certainly much more knowlegeable about Islamic history and tenets than myself, but one thing that I've always believed is that religion just is – it in and of itself does nothing, it is how those in power use and teach it. Christians in the middle ages committed such atrocities as the Spanish Inquisition; even today there are "extremist" Christians protesting military funerals for Iraq and Afghan war dead with signs like "America will go to hell for defending fags" or the like. The Inquisition wasn't really about converting Jews to Christianity, as much as taking their possessions and grabbing power. The masses in the Middle East are taught from very young what it means to be Muslim from an education system controlled by militant dictators, and they don't understand much else.
I don't know if Islam really is or isn't supposed to be a "religion of peace," but it never will be as long as the power mad control what goes into the minds of the masses.
Ann needs no defense of apologies from other conservatives, but rather, we need to think about what she's saying and decide if we agree with it or not. I notice that I generally do.
Sorry, a correction: it's supposed to be "defense OR apologies" in the first sentence of my last paragraph.
Guys! No one gets it! She is the modern day John Swift! She makes obnoxious noise to point out the lunacy of it all. Of course, we are not going to eat the Irish babies!
Focus on what she points out after you stop laughing at her joke. Rag-headed or beheaded is your choice. Show me which moderate Muslim we are supposed to appeal to and change the practice of lopping off heads, stoning women and blowing up children. I am interested to meet them. I hope those moderates are not trampled or burned to death by the other 99% of the crowd in the square on their way to those discussions.
Actually the Islam religon has a solid history of violence. When it was first growing as a religion they tried expanding to Europe from Spain and were effectively stopped at the boarder. That is not to say that christianity didn't have its own atrocities. However. the historic violence between Christianity and Islam started with the violent attempts to expand the Muslim religion. The real historical victims are the Jews. They have been in the religion business the longest, suffered the most, and so far the seem to be the most resonable.
In reference to #15. Ann Coulter is supporting our troops by letting them know not all of us are bleeding heart liberals bowing to the enemy, ready to undo the sacrficies of our heros in the blink of an eye. More importantly that there are still conservatives left who are unwilling to scarifice our heros to the liberals and the enemy (usually the same thing) on the alter of the politically correct. And while we're at it when did rag-head become a racial epithet? It makes no mention of race or religion.
No one has mentioned the sovereignty of GOD over His creation ,the book of Revelation , Islam's denial of Christ's divinity and the angelic warfare
Ann is a Goddess.
Gotta go with you on that one Peter!
Just like a kid throwing a pebble at bee's nest to get a thrill, I think Ann Coulter threw the word "rag-head" to watch the left go crazy…
and it worked.
Brilliant and entertaining,
I just love Ann Coulter!
Sworn enemies sounds like a play-ground feud. Proven killers are what 9-11 taught us. They keep telling us they want us dead. What part of the"Kill the Infidels" do you not understand? Don't the Imams keep saying that world domination is the goal of Islam?
As a straight, white, right-leaning libertarian man (just so that there is no…ahem, doubt), I disapprove of ann Coulter calling these camel-jockey's "towel heads".
We should all be good dhimmi's and recognize that the "religion of pieces", Islam, is the only true religion, and that Muhammad only killed those who deserved it.
You guys are a hoot! And yes, I'm certain the phrase was choosen very carefully to provide entertainment from the liberal left. It has certainly kept me entertained off and on for two days.
You guys are a hoot! And yes, I'm certain the phrase was choosen very carefully to provide entertainment from the liberal left. It has certainly kept me entertained off and on for two days. But now we need to move on and hear from Senator Teddy Kennedy on why the Vice President should resign because he failed to tell the democrats about a hunting accident with in 24 hours. Maybe Teddy is silent because the Veep was sober and actually call the police and an ambulance…oh yeah and he didn't kill anyone.
"Sworn Enemies" Are you delusional?! I'm a democrat, but don't look at Repubs as enemies. We are all American citizens; what we should be doing is working TOGETHER to make this a better country.
Neither party has all the right answers and what is right for today, isn't necessarily right for the future.
Ann Coulter is a political bombthrower, and that takes no intellect to be such. She is here today, but gone tomorrow, because over time rational Americans, regardless of political affiliation will find her unproductive and devisive.
The only reason why rightwingers even endorse her is because she stays in line and throws bombs in one direction only.
She is a bitter woman, and I hope your personal issues get resolved some day…
I agree with you, #44, about not being sworn enemies, but from a military/wartime perspective you do both sides a disservice. To call people bitter because they are defending our country and its foundations is misguided, at best. We have soldiers fighting to the best of their collective abilities and we have people here fighting in the capacity they can. If that includes derogatory comments we aren't even sure are derogatory so be it.
DebO,
There is no way for you, as a Democrat, to make this country better. Socialism is the antithesis of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and self reliance. You, as a Democrat, support the exact opposite of these things, if not in words, then by good intentions.
If you disagree, then you are a conservative or a libertarian. Otherwise, you're just another self-loathing socialist.
deb0, the comment "sworn enemy" was actually refering to the ones over there fighting us and the ones flying airliners into buildings…you know…the sworn enemies that declared war on us. It only refers to a democrat if they are aiding the enemy…you know like…well most democrats. OK you right never mind, democrats are the sworn enemy.
Wait a minute debO. We shouldn't leave out the liberal news media. I don't know who is worse the media or democrats but I sure wouldn't want to have to live on the difference.
Fri. Feb. 17 2006 10:09 AM ET
A leading Pakistani cleric has offered a 1.5 million rupee reward and a car to anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew Prophet Muhammad, reports say.
Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, announced he would give a 1.5 million rupee ($25,000 US) reward and a car for killing the cartoonist of the prophet pictures that appeared first in a Danish newspaper, The Associated Press reported.
"This is an unanimous decision of by all imams of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi was quoted as saying by AP."
…
I agree "rag head" is not the right word… seventh century barbarians is more like it.
Great job Ann! We are at war with the violent wing of Islam and we cannot afford
the luxury of nuance. Get ready, because they are coming for our heads. We won't survive by
sitting around worrying about their feelings.