Coulter on Iranian “jihad monkey” and the inapplicability of “conventions of ... personal hygiene and grooming” to Muslims

Written by Anna Dimond

Published

In her syndicated column, Ann Coulter referred to the Iranian president as a “jihad monkey” and wrote that “conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming” are “inapplicable when Muslims are involved.”

In her February 15 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter asked: "[I]s NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved?" Coulter made the remark in a column about the recent violence that has erupted over cartoons published in European newspapers. In the column, Coulter also directed comments to the president of Iran, which recently reopened several nuclear facilities. Addressing the Iranian president, she wrote:

If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about “camel jockey”? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

From Ann Coulter's February 15 column, “Muslim bites dog”:

The “offense to Islam” ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.

So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be “Offended Muslims Remain Calm.”

[...]

If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about “camel jockey”? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

[...]

We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than “hold Syria responsible” for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.

Or is NATO -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved?