America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Ann Coulter, what are you doing about the war fundamentalist Christians are waging in America today?

Hoping for more victories, more enemy casualties, and more Democratic Party losses.

And I love it when even the mug shots of the enemies of America have to be photoshopped. Dan Rather lives at CBS:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...don_kaplan.htm

[33girl]

Ann, what do you use on your hair? It always looks bouncy and shiny, and never shows signs of overprocessing.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Ann Coulter, what are you doing about the war fundamentalist Christians are waging in America today?

You must be kidding.

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Ann, what do you use on your hair? It always looks bouncy and shiny, and never shows signs of overprocessing.

Are you trying to sell me some Avon?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You must be kidding.

Fundamentalist Christians are just as much as threat if not more so than fundamentalist Muslims. The Christian fundies live here, that is why. Actually, they're both dangerous.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Fundamentalist Christians are just as much as threat if not more so than fundamentalist Muslims. The Christian fundies live here, that is why. Actually, they're both dangerous.

You're an idiot

[shinerbock]

The term "Christian fundamentalist" is misleading. Some estimates say there are 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.... Simply because they believe things such as homosexuality being a sin, that the Bible is completely accurate, that Jesus was born to a virgin and performed miracles, does not align them with the islamic fundamentalists. By some definitions, I could be a Christian fundamentalist, and many people would term Southern Baptists as such. Many use the term in place of evangelical christian. Islamic fundamentalism is associated with terrorism, while Christian fundamentalism should not be. The huge majority of Christian fundamentalists are not supportive of any acts of terror, be it towards abortion clinics, gay bars, etc...Now, if you're saying that Christian fundamentalists are dangerous because you're trying to play thought police, thats a different matter, but to put them on par with people who openly desire to kill people associated with western or jewish culture is simply ridiculous.

[greekalum]

"Fundamentalism" is not actually a term muslims use to self-identify or Islamic scholars use in conjunction with ANY muslims since the concept of "fundamentalism" is, in fact, a Christian one, started by organizations that wanted to return to the fundamentals of the Christian faith and emphasize the infallibility of the Bible after the Christian church had undergone many, many schisms creating the many sects and denominations we have today.

Applying it to Islam is misleading because there are only two major muslim sects, neither of which have made the strong divergence from their roots that some Christian sects have.

Acts of extremism are NOT fundamentalism and it is misleading to label them as such.

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Give me a break. You're blaming all of those things on Jimmy Carter? Unbelievable.

Please remind me what was the response of Carter's administration when the Iranians invaded our embassy, destroyed our property, and took our Embassy staff hostage?

It was a seven letter word.

Nothing

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Please remind me what was the response of Carter's administration when the Iranians invaded our embassy, destroyed our property, and took our Embassy staff hostage?

It was a seven letter word.

Nothing

Please remind me what was the response of Bush's administration when they invaded Iraq under the false pretense of "Al-Queda Connection", destroyed their property, and caused insurgency and near-civil war?

It was a seven letter word.

Nothing


In other words, STFU!

[greekalum]

Why would the Bush administration need to respond to their own actions?

(Not that I approve of the Bush administration's foreign policy, but your post makes no sense. Unless by "they" you also mean the Iranians, in which case you've got some facts really wrong.)

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by greekalum

Why would the Bush administration need to respond to their own actions?

(Not that I approve of the Bush administration's foreign policy, but your post makes no sense. Unless by "they" you also mean the Iranians, in which case you've got some facts really wrong.)

Apology for misleading the public, for one.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Apology for misleading the public, for one.

While the administration certainly obfuscated the reasons behind invasion, do you really think an apology is actually an equivalent "nothing" to the post you reponded to?

Not that I particularly agree with ann.coulter2's post, but I think you're going apples and oranges when it's not at all necessary to make your point. Why don't we simply discuss the Bush administration's actions on their own merits?

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While the administration certainly obfuscated the reasons behind invasion, do you really think an apology is actually an equivalent "nothing" to the post you reponded to?

Not that I particularly agree with ann.coulter2's post, but I think you're going apples and oranges when it's not at all necessary to make your point. Why don't we simply discuss the Bush administration's actions on their own merits?

Thank you for telling me what's necessary to make my point.

[greekalum]

What IS your point, exactly? Because if it was a logical response or rebuttal to Ann Coulter over there, you certainly didn't make it.