Memo to Fox & Friends: No matter how many times you say it, Rauf's comments weren't a threat
September 10, 2010 11:18 am ET by Eric Schroeck
Never failing to push a storyline that could spark outrage against the proposed Islamic center in Manhattan, Fox & Friends this morning relentlessly pushed the claim that recent comments made by Park51 organizer Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf were a "threat" against America.
Here are the latest remarks made by Rauf that Fox & Friends seized on:
RAUF: My major concern with moving is that the headline in the Muslim world will be "Islam is under attack in America." This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given -- and fueled terrorism.
How desperate was Fox & Friends to stir up more phony outrage over Park51? Hosts Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade referred to Rauf's comments as a "threat" at least 10 times during the show.
On-screen text displayed during the show also drove home the Fox & Friends talking point:
But the claim that Rauf was threatening America -- despite Fox & Friends' insistence -- is absurd. As Media Matters noted on Thursday after Fox & Friends led the initial charge in calling Rauf's comments a "threat," Rauf's remarks echo those of national security experts -- including Gen. David Petraeus -- who have warned of the security implications of anti-Muslim protests.
Eventually, after about two-and-a-half hours of relentless fearmongering by the Fox & Friends crew, Chris Wallace came on to throw some cold water on their claim, stating that he didn't hear Rauf's comments as a threat and noting that Petraeus has made a similar "legitimate argument."
By then, though, the damage was done. Fox & Friends viewers had been bombarded with the message that the organizer of the Islamic center was essentially threatening America. Just the latest example of Fox's relentless stoking of anti-Muslim outrage.
All propaganda, all the time.
Now, I suppose some Troglodytes might consider that a threat, but the thinking majority would consider it an attempt to keep your kid from doing something stupid.
Fox News' message to its viewers: We're not morons, but we think you are.
Wait, white Christians said the above? Never mind.
They're being deliberately obtuse in order to increase their viewer ratings and profits. They have to keep beating the drum they've been beating so that their viewers won't begin to realize that the network is filled with lying POS who are using them to make themselves and their friends in Congress and the corporate world richer.
It is embarrassing that General Petraeus spoke out against the Pastor in Florida. If anything he should have spoken out in defense of American freedoms, he should have declared that any violent reaction to American's expressing their rights would be met with overwhelming American force. Instead he cowardly asked a meaningless pastor in Florida to back down for fear of Islamic reaction.
The President...are you kidding me...what does he even have to say about pastor nobody? Why did he ever comment on such a ridiculous subject, and why would he ever ask an American Citizen to supress his opinion for fear of angering people. Is our President hostage to the violence or potential violonce of Islam? That is the real story here.
If winning the hearts and minds comes at the cost of our President supressing freedom, or aquiescing to religous terrorism, then winning the hearts and minds is not the correct strategy. Whether it is a redneck or not doesn't matter, he is still an American and has every right to burn a Quran. He could even get a picture of Alah and Mohammed kissing and urinate all over it, and the President should still defend his right to do so. No amount of threatened violence should ever move the President to reconsider American Freedoms.
Fixed. And you do know that Iraq had f-ck-all to do with 9/11, right? Nah, of course you didn't.
Okay, a) winning the hearts and minds is how you prevent impressionable young people from BECOMING terrorists, roxie. And b) thinking someone is a dumbass isn't "supressing" freedom, otherwise the ACLU would take your case every time you trolled here.
Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you? Freak.
Again, I wasn't aware the president had taken any legal action against him.
I assume American Freedoms is a TV show or something, since you Capitalized It for No Apparent Reason. But yes, you're right, the president should only acquiesce to threats of violence when they come from teabaggers.
Anything else?
You must have purposely missed the part about national security being the reason. 9/11 was the catalyst, but I said that already, it must be difficult for you to seperate your fantasies from reality.
"...young people from BECOMING terrorists, roxie. And b) thinking someone is a dumbass isn't "supressing" freedom, otherwise..." - soze
Okay, a)I never said otherwise. Again an invention of what you think I said. b) Obama didn't call him a dumbass, he suggested he shouldn't burn the Qurans for fear of reprisal. Again, making arguements against things I never said. Why is with you a making things up? Ever considered writing fiction, you get lots of practice here?
"..., you'd like that...." -soze
blah blah blah...
"Again, I wasn't aware the president had taken any legal action against him." -soze
Never said he did. Obama doesn't have to take legal action against the pastor to demonstrate his aquiescence to Islamic constitutional incompatability and religous terrorism.
"...violence when they come from teabaggers." -snooze
Blah blah blah...make a point once in a while. You are kind of like Wierd Al, you never have an original thought.
This is the same "Wierd" Al who writes his own lyrics and, in some cases, his own music?
And, once again, I find that I need to explain to another doofus rightwinger that there's a cost/benefit analysis that goes into EVERY decision. We don't allow absolute freedom of speech, because yelling "fire" in a crowded theater puts too many other people's right to physical protection at risk! And the idea that the President can't STOP someone from endangering the lives of soldiers is ridiculous. The idea that there's NO point at which threatened violence is indefensible is ridiculous.
We were NEVER in Iraq because of national security OR 9/11, that was the Bush/Cheney lie to justify starting a war! Iraq posed NO threat to national security and they had NOTHING to do with 9/11!
The question is not whether he has the right, but is it the right thing to do. Especially considering there are American men and women putting THEIR lives on the line for this country.
No one, including the President thinks this so called pastor does not have the right, but I would think IF you claim to support the troops, you would not INTENTIONALLY place them in harms way. And you cannot deny that burning a Muslim holy book while American soldiers are fighting in a Muslim country is a wise thing to do, period.
The beauty of the United States is that if you think its wrong to burn the quran, and pastor jones thinks its a good idea, he can do it. Isn't it a great concept, differing ideas have the same protections.
As far has the pastor putting our troops in harms way, well I guess I figured becoming a terrorist was a personal decision, not a consequence of someone burning a book. I wonder if it is a 1:1 relationship, for every book burnt one terrorist is created.
Well it sure look like one of the cited reasons included in the Iraq War Resolution was the attempt to assassinate Bush's Daddy.
Iraq War Resolution
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush
While other Presidents may have spoke of Iraq's possible WMD's and Saddam's harsh dictatorship, they did not invaded Iraq.
In the words of Bush Sr., "we would have incurred incalculable human and political costs" and "we would be forced to occupy Baghdad and in effect rule Iraq".
So I'm happy that 61% of Democratic Representatives and 42% of Democratic Senators were smart enough not to vote for the resolution. It showed they had a healthy scepticism about the reasons given for war. Unlike the 97% of Republican Representatives and 98% of Senate Republicans, all supported the resolution without question.
When a United States General tell YOU that YOUR actions will put AMERICAN SOLDIERS in harms way, WHO gives a rat's a** about a "terrorist's personal decision"?
I thought the right-wing had a lock on supporting the troops?
And seriously, just because you have the freedom to act like an a**, doesn't mean you should!
Since 9/11, we have sent over a million Americans overseas for the specific purpose of combating terrorism. They have fought and died for you in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite this, it's your view that Americans have "cowered before Islamic terrorism"? REALLY??
Our bravest and most highly skilled people have apprehended and imprisoned numerous terrorists. And Americans are "cowering"???
Why do you so quickly dismiss the sacrifice that others have made just so you can declare that if we're not burning Qur'ans, we're "cowering"?
Spending hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of American lives just isn't a substantial enough response to terrorism, but burning the Qur'an is? Burning books is going to make you feel safe?
You have completely dishonored the sacrifice of our military and overseas operatives by ignoring their efforts to declare we are "cowering".
You further dishonor their sacrifice when you criticize them for speaking out against such a public display and rightfully declaring it destructive to their efforts.
I'll reply when you don't invent an arguement from a fantasy of things you wish I had said.
Fixed for accuracy.
As to what each individual person feels, I made no comment. But as a general policy set forth by our elected representative, the President, by Americans, yeah I'd say we are cowering when the president doesn't declare America's position on freedom of expression, and instead retreats in fear of reprisal.
I certainly never spoke once about servicemen, or individual americans and their personal cowardice.
If you really disagree with what I have stated, why don't you defend your position instead of inventing an argument about something I never said. If you want I can even spell it out for you. Either you think the President was correct, and we should allow religious violence dictate American policy or you believe that American constitutional rights should be vigorously defended, even at the cost of incurring violence.
Do your rights guranteed by the constitution mean enough to you to face another 9/11? That is the real question.
The right to threaten violence is NOT absolute.
If I threaten a average citizen, I likely won't suffer ANY penalty. If I threaten the President, I likely WILL suffer a penalty.
If I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I will be GUILTY of abusing my free speech rights because of how my speech might impact the safety of other theatergoers.
It's not a failure of OUR argument here - it's a fatal flaw in YOUR argument.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is purposefully intended to cause confusion, panic, and disorder.
Burning the quran is a expression of negative opinions about islam. It does not cause panic, disorder, or violence. The threatened violence is a decision made in retaliation to a specific act. No burning of the Quran could ever force another person to act a certain way.
If you comparison were true, then the pastor could have simply been arrested.
What you are suggesting is more like this. I decide to garden naked in my yard. My neighbor doesn't like it so he yells over the fence, and threatens to kill my wife if I don't put some clothes back on. I continue in the nude, and he kills my wife. It sounds like you are suggesting I am the one responsible for my wife's death.
This argument is pretty simple to resolve. All you have to do is answer a simple question to know where you stand on the issue.
If there were no threats of violence, would you have wanted the burning of the quran stopped?
My position is that we are not cowering, and my evidence is the enormous effort and sacrifice our nation continues to put forth in overseas military campaigns to find and kill or capture terrorists.
I think I've defended my position more than adequately.
The president is not just our elected representative, he is our commander-in-chief and is responsible for defending our country and keeping it safe from enemies. His words regarding the Qur'an burning are those of a leader who is trying to deprive al Queda of a fresh batch of recruitment propaganda. I.E. he wants to neutralize the enemies we have, without creating new ones.
American right-wing:
Burning Koran = good for America, bad for terrorists
Obama = bad for America, good for terrorists
Don't go muddling it up with logic or gray areas.
What you did make up is my criticism and dismissal of the sacrifice many americans have made for this country. That part you did make up, own it.
Your position is well noted. I agree that this nation has put forth enormous effort and sacrifice to kill and capture terrorists. That doesn't change the fact that the President and top General seem willing to exchange freedom for safety.
The president is the commander-in-chief and is responsible for defending our country, that was never a question or a point of dispute. If depriving al Queda of fresh recruiting propoganda costs Americans their rights, then it is not worth the price.
It seems like it would be better to create enemies of freedom, than do give it up for friendship.
You declared that Americans are "cowering before Islamic terrorism" and then immediately labeled Patraeus an embarrassment for his condemnation. IMO, when you criticize him, you're criticizing every active and veteran service member who served in these theaters and shares the general's point of view. They are laying their lives on the line trying to gain the trust of the Iraqis and Afghans we're supposed to be helping not just for the sake of gaining allies, but for gaining intelligence on terrorist hideouts.
What are these brave Americans supposed to say when they are confronted by Muslims in the theater about some nut back in the US publicly burning a sacred text? Judging by your assessment, they're supposed to say, "Pastor Terry is within his rights, and if you don't like it, just remember, we're authorized to use deadly force." YEAH. That's really going to win hearts and minds and convince them not to take up arms. What a brilliant strategy, Roxx.
That would mean going above the law. The President made it abundantly clear in his criticism that he is not above the law.
"IMO, when you criticize him, you're criticizing every active and veteran service member who served in these theaters and shares the general's point of view." - pete
Seriously? What is your point? Are you suggesting that a single point of disagreement or criticism results in a complete rejection of the whole? Perhaps if General Patraeus were infallable that could be true, but I highly doubt he is.
"What are these brave Americans supposed to say ..." - pete
Easy. "Pastor Terry believes Islam is a religion of hate, terror, and violence. In the United States everyone is free to express their opinions, and I like most Americans disagree with the Pastor."
Thank you for telling me what my strategy is though. An endemic disease of progressive posters here at MMFA. There is a cure you know.
How would that require going above the law? They could pass new laws, something like the Patriot Act maybe? It isn't without precedent.
That's a far cry from this...
I certainly never thought he was infallable. He is human.
Two seperate statements, the top one was in response to a question on the ground to a soldier talking to a lay muslim. The bottom was a policy statement that would have been more fitting of a president and general of the United States speaing broadly to terrorism in general.
Even better, the General never should have made a public statement about Pastor Terry. The most he should have ever said if the subject arose, "The man is a fool, thank god he doesn't represent the majority or moral conscience of America." The President, would have been better advised to say something similar. Instead they took a defensive position of weakness in response to potential islamic radicalism.
You are trying to slap a label you've invented for neo-conservatives on me and it doesn't fit. Sorry.
I'm certainly not religously intolerant either, and I haven't said anything that would suggest otherwise. Criticism of our countries leadership hardly counts for religously intolerant.