Savage: "[N]ot all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim"
On his radio show, Michael Savage said that "not all Muslims are terrorists," then falsely asserted that "all terrorists happen to be Muslim." Savage stated: "I am a believer in all five of the world's religions. As long as they're peace-loving and are pro-American, as far as I'm concerned, all religions are equal." He continued, "However, when you consider the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim and that the 19 hijackers who destroyed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslim, mainly from Saudi Arabia, we have a very real obligation to remember that."
On the October 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said that "not all Muslims are terrorists," then falsely asserted that "all terrorists happen to be Muslim." Savage stated: "I am a believer in all five of the world's religions. As long as they're peace-loving and are pro-American, as far as I'm concerned, all religions are equal." He continued, "However, when you consider the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim and that the 19 hijackers who destroyed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslim, mainly from Saudi Arabia, we have a very real obligation to remember that."
Media Matters for America has documented Savage's history of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab statements:
- September 2008: Regarding Muslim immigrants to the United States, Savage asked, "Why would a nation that is as evolved as America, and as liberal as America is socially, want to bring in throwbacks who are living in the 15th century? Now you have to ask yourself, what's the benefit? What is the societal benefit of bringing in throwbacks, some of whom are no doubt terrorists, and some of whom are gonna produce children who will become terrorists?"
- July 2007: Savage said that "when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi," adding, "That's what I see -- how do you like that? -- a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children." Savage later said that when a Muslim woman wears a burqa, "She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, 'You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can.' "
- October 2006: Discussing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the continued violence in Iraq, Savage suggested that Islam is "a bloodthirsty religion that's practiced over there by a bunch of throwbacks, and we're gonna to kill 'em." Savage called for the United States to say: "That's it, we're leaving them; we're killing them."
- June 2006: Savage read from a June 4 New York Times article about the arrest of 17 Canadian residents on charges that they were planning a terrorist attack. Savage noted that according to the article, one of the suspects is a "well-known and fiery figure ... in the Toronto area's South Asian community" and the imam of a mosque. Savage then stated that "[w]henever you see the word 'South Asian,' substitute the word for 'terrorist,' or reference to 'terrorist.' " Savage then said of the word "imam," the title of the prayer leader in a mosque, "that's another code word for trouble-making bum who should have been thrown out of the country."
- April 2006: During a discussion with a caller he later described as an "ordinary Muslim," Savage declared that based on the caller's views about the war in Iraq and fading phone signal, he must have been using a cell phone "made over there in a bomb factory in the Gaza strip."
- June 2004: Savage asserted that only when he sees Muslim extremists "hanging from lampposts in the entire Middle East ... with their guts hanging out, then I'll believe that there's a difference between radical Islam and the rest of Islam over there."
- May 2004: Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; asserted that Americans would like to "drop a nuclear weapon" on any Arab country; and that "these people" in the Middle East "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the October 9 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: How about his relatives in Kenya? Mr. [Jerome] Corsi went over to Kenya to investigate his relatives in Kenya, and he was arrested by the Muslim leader of Kenya because Mr. Corsi uncovered the true birthplace, I believe, of Hussein Obama and the connections that exist between Barack Hussein Obama and this Muslim leader and what this Muslim leader said he would do after this election. And yet McCain says why should I care about this?
Well, as you well know, Obama's first father left him and his mother. And he was a Muslim. And Obama's mother then remarried with her new husband who was again a Muslim. And yet we're not supposed to say the M word. Now, as I said to you, I am a believer in all five of the world's religions. As long as they're peace-loving and are pro-American, as far as I'm concerned, all religions are equal. However, when you consider the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim and that the 19 hijackers who destroyed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslim, mainly from Saudi Arabia, we have a very real obligation to remember that. Never mind that we've been told not to remember it by the both party candidates. Never mind that PBS -- which should be defunded -- tries to embarrass you every time you remember reality. I remember reality.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
He's 50% right here. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not not all terrorists are Muslims.
Too many negatives there. Are you really saying all terrorists are Muslims?
Good catch, I guess that's what happens when you're trying to do 10 things at once (slight exaggeration), but no I did not intend to say that all terrorists are Muslims
Dawuss.....
"but no I did not intend to say that all terrorists are Muslims"
That's good...... because I'd hate to have to remind you that Tim McVeigh was a white Christian male. Or that many domestic terrorist that blow up/shot dead those abortion hospitals/doctors have all been white Christian males.
I would also not want to have to point out that the IRA is full of Irish..... somehow I doubt there are any Muslims among that group of terrorists.
Nor do I think that there are any Muslims in the many drug cartels/terrorists in South and Central America.
I'd mention BlackWater USA also..... but I'll hold off judgement for the moment on this lovely little group of 'potentially defined' terrorists!
What about BILL AYERS?!
Savage should explain to tell his listeners why he does not believe that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Maybe he thinks Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim?
Yes!!! You beat me to it! (I should have read farther down before posting!)
No, Savage does not think that McVeigh was a terrorist.
Because McVeigh was a white man.
Also, I believe Savage made the same "not all Muslims" rant in one of his books. He goes into the McVeigh issue, but I forget what his "rationale" was for exempting McVeigh.
Bill
If you make such a claim..as you did with this statement ..."He goes into the McVeigh issue, but I forget what his "rationale" was for exempting McVeigh." you should support it with facts...
And those who just take you, a stranger, at your word, are at the least easily led...
Savage makes it prefectly clear that he does not think McVeigh is a terrorist when he claims that "all terrorists happen to be Muslim."
"Now, let's look a little closer to home...what has Senator Obama said about Christians? I won't quote here...search it out for yourself?"
And then...
"you should support it with facts..."
Maybe you should either tell us what Obama has said about Christians, or don't tell others to provide evidence.
wow. dumb!
Of course, Michael Savage doesn't think the Ku Klux Klan are terrorists. He happens to be a member there.
By the way, Hitler-Savage - Ann Coulter said that first. If you're going to call for a Second Holocaust, can't you at least be a little original in your hatred for ALL Muslims?
Timothy McVeigh was a muslim?
And all those Irish catholic bombers were actually muslim?
Wow, William Ayers is a Muslim?
Who knew?
So, this undercuts PalinTwit's whole "domestic terrorist" talking point, does it not? I guess Weenie didn't get the memo.
And it's the left that's considered hateful and factless? I just came across this little gem. Amazing how rightwingers will claim that this is exactly equivelant to what the left is supposedly doing to Palin...
Full article here. You should also check out the piece at huffpo about mccain camp training volunteers to compare Obama to terrorists. Amazing...
I also love how it's "PC" to object to that. Seriously, if you can't cry foul over a picture that calls for Obama to be lynched, then there are no limits on what is considered acceptable speech.
Come on, brab, you didn't know murder isn't PC?
We need to get rid of those durn PC libs, so murder can be funny again!
Just for the sake of personal honesty you should publish some of the LEFT'S filth as welll Then the fact will be clear... both sides have hatful people.
such as?
Put up or shut up.
"hatemongering McCain/Palin crowds,"
Rather BROAD STROKE there...guess it is ok to just lump all supporters in with this pothetic excuse of a human being....rather than renounce the PERSON or ORGANIZATION behind this filth...
Interesting...I keep seeing this show up on this thread...so many here renouncing Savage's BROAD STROKE, use the same pen...
"...not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim..."
All Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are Muslims. That's true. I wonder if all White Supremecists are white... I wonder if all Evangelicals are Christians...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77636
Not including the quotes, the opening paragraph is an absolute classic for all the MMFA "comment monkeys"*, though the rest of article is interesting re: McCain's chances.
* courtesy The Hater Nation
From that link:
He and Palin should be hammering Obama and the Democrats every day regarding the bailout of the Wall Street crooks and incompetent mortgage executives at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others. These corporate criminals have been protected for years by the Democrat majority in Congress, even as Republicans repeatedly sought for tighter regulations of Wall Street and the home mortgage industry.
Yeah, OK, exactly what again is interesting? Is it that it continues to bring up debunked lies about how the great republicans, while in control of all three houses, tried to save the country but couldn't because of that nasty democratic minority? Did you forget all that talk about the nuke option threat the republicans tossed around like a well worn bible?
"tried to save the country but couldn't because of that nasty democratic minority?"
Read it again! It says "These corporate criminals have been protected for years by the Democrat majority in Congress"
Exactly. Since the democrats took a slim majority in the Senate, and a slim majority in the house, and have been blocked by, well, everything that they've wanted to do by the Senate republicans since they took over, doesn't it stand to reason, just a little bit, that since the republicans held both houses of Congress since 1994, and the White House since 2000, that THEY might be just a tad bit more responsible than those evil democrats? Since when, do democrats like corporate criminals? Wasn't it probably these same right wingers who were decrying socialism when we talked about corporations you know, paying their fair share of income tax? How can we be socialists, AND corporate stooges at the same time?
The right wing attacks are becoming more and more unhinged as we move on towards November.
Like Savage here. Does he forget about ETA in Spain as well? They're not Muslims either. IRA. Not Muslims. Tim McVeigh? He was probably one of Savage's best buddies. Eric Rudolph? White and Christian as can be. Unabomber? Hello, white and Christian again.
I read that, so are you suggesting his point was all this happened in just the last two years? That republicans grew a conscience in 2006? Unless I'm mistaken he's implying a much longer time period.
Let's see:
- Tamil Tigers: Sri Lankan Hindus.
- IRA: Irish Catholics.
- Shining Path: Peruvian Atheists.
That's just the organized groups, and just a start!
The good Doctor did slip up on the exact wording of what he was trying to quote here. I will provide the facts since MMFA already provided the attack.
In his book, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Savage quotes Abdel Rahman Al Rashed, manager of the Al-Arabiya news channel: "It is a certain fact that not all muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are muslims." Savage refers to this notion regularly on his show, and it is obvious to any regular listener that he was referring to it here.
MMFA is always pointing out how various programs and pundits do not provide suffient background information on various "quesitonable" guests to allow the viewer/listener the chance to make a decision on the insight coming from that person (example - Corsi appearing on Hannity and Colmes). Funny, MMFA does not provide this simple piece of background information that I just gave you on Savage to inform the readers here, so they can make a decision about the validity of this statement.
Good point, John, I agree. Savage is stupid, not lying.
Just curious, though. Who is 'the good Doctor'?
That's a stretch, even for you John.
You pull a quote from one of Weiner's books to refute what he clearly said on his radio show, that all terrorists are Muslims.
In the book, you claim he says "almost all terrorists are Muslims". Are you suggesting he should now correct his on air statement?
All I am suggesting is that he frequently refers back to this quote that came from a muslim media figure. In the middle of a rant, he didn't get it word for word, but anyone who knows Savage would know his intention with that comment due to the frequent use of that notion.
I am also pointing out that once again, MMFA fails to live up to the journalistic standards that it sets for right-leaning media figures and outlets.
See, that just goes to show that on the right and on the left there are such Kooks out there.
How does that show that there are such kooks on the left? Are you just imagining that, or do you have some comparable examples of liberals?
This "little comment" was the premise of Weiner's statement. That "all terrorists are Muslim". I hope you don't actually believe that this was incidental to some more rational thought he was trying to get across.
If you don't think there any crazies out there on the left...and I have to bring to you examples...common man...that is funny...I guess just take a visit to (and I might spell this wrong) the Dailykos...or how about that Congressman the other day saying John McCain was the same as Govenor G.Wallace....
to your second point...all I'm saying is that he speaks on Live Radio...sometimes you say things and you know what you mean and if given opportunties it could be stated better or more thoroughly you do that...but just like me sometimes I can be vague assuming someone else knows exactly what I'm saying...until they ask me "what do you mean"
Lewis stating that the mood of this campaign reminds him of George Wallace is pretty reasonable. The fear-mongering, racism and religious prejudice used by the GOP are the most pathetic I've seen in my lifetime. If this is your example to compare to the lynching theme above, I have no further questions on that one.
On the second point, you're a pitiful apologist. This wasn't a secondary, off-hand comment, it was the entire thrust of Weiner's statement, and his intent was pretty clear to anybody with a functioning brain.
Lewis stated that McCain was the same as GWallace...that is a far far cry...secondly...the campaign hasn't once fear mongered, been involved in any racist comments or religious prejudice at all...that is a load of BS....
So, because McCain thinks it reasonable to call to into ?? Obama's association with a Domestic Terriorist and someone who wants to now radicalize young people as a way of bestowing his great mind on others that is fear mongering? What a joke....same joke that somehow McCain should held responsible for what some "NUTS" have said at his rallies....once again the left at its best...."you don't agree with us...well then you're a racist and fear mongerer and you hate people's religion"....give that one a rest it is old already
Lewis stated that McCain was the same as GWallace - CPA5
No, he didn't. I suggest you go back and read Lewis' words. You won't find a statement similar to that.
Easy, Tiger. You're getting hysterical.
Classic response in a debate:)
So, because McCain thinks it reasonable to call to into ?? Obama's association with a Domestic Terriorist and someone who wants to now radicalize young people as a way of bestowing his great mind on others that is fear mongering?
You hit the nail on the head there, bro. Has Obama brought up any of McCain's shady associations? G Gordon Liddy, Karl Rove? Charlie Black, Rick Davis? No, the only associations he's accused McCain of, and rightully so, are Keating and Bush/Cheney. Obama has shown restraint. McCain? Not so much...
You sound just like the guy who created that lynch obama poster I just posted earlier. He says the exact same things you do on his blog site. Hmmm...
Ooohhh I forgot...by me addressing Obama's associations and merely questioning his judgement and character...that is the SAME EXACT THING as if I had creating the "lynchmobbing" poster....Thank you sir for your wonderful insight and clarity. That is absolute nonsense!
McCain should be held responsible if he doesn't stop mid speech and have the people making the despicable comments removed from the rally. His facial expressions show that he clearly hears what the cretins are yelling.
Oh, for crying out loud. Lewis said that the McCain eliminationist campaign rhetoric reminded him of Wallace.
"During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."
But I guess to someone as savagely desensitized to hate speech as yourself, then it probably isn't fear mongering to tell people that Obama pals around with terrorists, that he doesn't view our country like we do, that he doesn't share our values. Look, any woman who pals around with America hating secessionists and marries a former member of that secessionist party, ought to know better.
You have to remember that Conservatives have a hard time with analogies. I guess they find the nuance required too intimidating.
Perhaps. I'm inclined to think they do nuance very well and they use it when it suits their arguments.
It takes a degree of nuance to blur the distinction between an analogy and a simile.
Since you defend the statement Lewis made...give us some examples that affirm this accusation...or does it just make you feel better about your own party affiliation?
The truth stated is not fear mongoring...it is simply stating facts. He associated rather closely, AND LIED ABOUT IT, with a man who participated in terrorism and said he has no regrets and that he supports socialism and communisim.
Screw that. I don't need to be on the defensive about anything you say. I mean seriously, your VP candidate married an America hating secessionist, your presidential candidate embraces the radical, "aim for the head," extremist, G. Gordon Liddy. Come on. Are ye daft, laddy? I have no interest in your attacks.
You guys are truely unbelievable...do we all have to walk on eggshells because Obama is African American? Can we not call into ?? his associations? Can we not disagree with this man without being told if do that we are FEAR MONGERING, CREATING HATE, or that we are flat out RACISTS?
What a world to live in if we can't ?? the men who would be president
Who brought up anything about race? I think you protest too much.
You wish I had to resort to the race card to make my case, but I don't.
How about B.O. a couple of months ago telling people that "they" the repubs would say (paraphrased)"and I have a funny name, and I don't look like them"....lets face it in the mainstream media there has been times race was injected in when someone would stand in opposition to B.O....That's how the liberals try and shut people up....they say words like "fear mongering", "creating hate", and Racists.
You accused me in this discussion of using race as a wedge, now how about giving an example pertinent to this discussion? Not some prescient Obama quotes, that by the way, nailed Palin's rhetoric to a tee.
No, I'll be the first to admit that I don't think people are necessarily either/or about racism. I don't think people are either racist or not racist. Most Americans are not consciously racist but that doesn't mean that, like their conservative counterparts, even liberals and progressives don't have fearful subconscious responses to images of black men. Nobody wants to be considered racist and the vast majority of people hold strong values of compassion and empathy for people of all skin colors. For that reason it is important to ask Obama to speak honestly and openly like he did so well in Philadelphia, speaking about race and Jeremiah Wright. Voters need to know that he shares their hopes and values, and they need to know if he will be there to do the right thing for them.
While I'm quick and sensitive to sniff out eliminationist rhetoric because i don't think it can be as easily discussed and defused as matters of race. I think you'll find I'm reticent to call one a racist. You can read my posts here, I called out John of the many numbers recently, but you'll find I don't go looking to call people racist.
But realize this, it's no more fair or honorable to link Obama to unpatriotic narratives than it is for lefties to link McCain to the racist George Wallace. That's just how I see it.
------------------------------------------------------
Now. From another thread discussion between us...
Eliminationist rhetoric is a term coined by Dave Neiwart. It's based, according to Dave, on the work of historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Here is Neiwart's explanation..."
What, really, is eliminationism?
It's a fairly self-explanatory term: it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.
... Rhetorically, it takes on some distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself -- unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination. It often depicts its designated "enemy" as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and loves to incessantly suggest that its targets are themselves disease carriers. A close corollary -- but not as nakedly eliminationist -- are claims that the opponents are traitors or criminals, or gross liabilities for our national security, and thus inherently fit for elimination or at least incarceration.
And yes, it's often voiced as crude "jokes", the humor of which, when analyzed, is inevitably predicated on a venomous hatred.
But what we also know about this rhetoric is that, as surely as night follows day, this kind of talk eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results.
What distinguishes eliminationist rhetoric from other political hyperbole, in the end, are two key factors:
-- It is focused on an enemy within, people who constitute entire blocs of the citizen populace, and
--It advocates the excision and extermination, by violent means or civil, of those entire blocs."
(ps. I love coffee and would find it nice to chat over a cup. Maybe someday down the road.)
And according to last night's debate your pal B.O. said both he and Lewis retracted the statement and that Lewis realized he went overboard
So he did, so he did.
Sad that I heard almost the exact same comment in class today. One of my 18ish black students was making a joke about terrorists and said "how could I be a terrorist- I'm an American." I had to stop class and tell him that Timothy McVeigh was an American terrorist who killed 168 people and that I thought that was racist of him. The odd thing is he refused to admit that he was wrong- he insisted McVeigh must have been from another country, because it didn't make any sense to want to destroy the place you lived. Yeah, I'm at a loss.
He's almost right. A majority of the terrorists are Muslims.
Not all Catholics are pedophile priests, but all pedophile priests are Catholics.
Actually "Killa", your comment declares your ignorance of history and reality. You can say what you want, do what you want, and twist facts anyway you want, but you will only mislead those as ignorant as yourself and the place you will lead them to will be a dark, evil, place. Because that's where ignorant people end up.
BTW - the child being raped by the priest is experiencing terrorism. And the church has covered for these guys for decades, perhaps centuries.
While you sit here ranting and name calling, I'd like to see you cough up some documentation that proves the majority of terrorists are not muslims. Maybe some data from the CIA or FBI?
Also, your child/priest example makes no sense since that crime is legally defined under rape, molestation, child abuse, and sexual abuse laws. Terrorism does not enter into the equation in that case, sorry.
I'd like to see you cough up some documentation that proves the majority of terrorists are not muslims. (John#####)
You're asking somebody for documentation of something they never said nor implied? That's just silly.
Speaking of name calling, Johnny.
Posted by john174541842 in reply to magnolialover
Obama is a halfrican oreo. Get over it.
Posted Sunday October 12, 2008 2:13:41 AM EDT / Flag this comment
I'd like to see you cough up some documentation that proves the majority of terrorists are not [sic] muslims"
Let's make this as simple as possible. Weiner's assertion was all terrorists happen to be Muslim", an assertion which is demonstrably false. It is Weiner that must bear the proof of demonstrating that assertion. He can't and won't. In fact he regularly makes idiotic claims he can neither document nor support on a cohrent rational basis. Michael Alan Weiner goes down in flames again. Our job is done here. If you want to make the assertion that the majority of terrorists are Muslim then you must do the following:
If you can't then STFU.
Why does it seem "the left" only rails against religion when it's Christianity?
Have not the majority of terrorists, from the Russion school attacks to 9/11 been Muslim?
why do you need to set a timeline? Are you only concerned about terrorist attacks that occured after 9-11?
Do you want to go back to the Crusades or something?
In THIS day and age, the majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims.
"Majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims" does not equate to all Muslims (p/Weiner). He's just a stupid, stupid man who doesn't realize how stupid he is. If ignorance is bliss, then Weiner is the most blissful person on the planet.
Also, get your facts right - the left doesn't rail against Christianity. We only object when someone tells us in matters of faith that their religion is fact. And we tend to get upset when those supposed bastions of family values like to hold themselves as the voice of God and those of us who dare to disagree with their new world order will be smited.
Steve...'the left only objects when someone tells us in matters of faith that their religion is a fact."
Why exactly should that bother you so much? People state stuff all the time that I don't believe is true.
As for the claim that the left doesn't rail against Christianity...might I suggest you go brouse "Sarah Palin' and see just how much railing shows up from LEFT supporters. And while there pay attention to POLITICIANS who have railed based on her faith...
Now, let's look a little closer to home...what has Senator Obama said about Christians? I won't quote here...search it out for yourself?
So while it is true that not ALL left supporters rail against Christianity...it is certainly NOT true that 'THE LEFT' doesn't rail against Christianity.
You have done the same thing this man you called 'stupid' did...
We're talking about public policy here. If you base your policy on the "facts" of religion, that violates the separation of church and state.
This is what people are railing against Palin about. If you think "thou shalt not kill" means that a woman impregnanted by a rapist should be forced to carry that rapist's child to term, then you're a zealot. If you think man co-existed with dinosaurs, you are a zealot. You can believe what you want, but when you're in public service you have a duty to serve all the people, not just those on the religious fringe.
That's more like it, brabantio. When guys like myview try to hide behind religion to launch character assaults on liberal principles, make them eat their words. Palin is a zealot who would use government to force her faith on the rest of us. It's plain and simple, no nuance, no bs.
People like this feel a need to claim that Christianity is somehow being attacked because it's not true. If a Christian zealot has their way with government, that affects me and anyone who isn't a Christian. It would create a group of second-class citizens and it affects the rights of those who don't accept the basis for those policies in the first place. On the other hand, if my views were policy, that wouldn't affect Christians, because their beliefs are their own private matter and they would still have that. Gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and euthanasia don't change that in even the most minor way.
So that difference is exactly why some have to frame liberals as "attacking" Christianity, because that difference is impossible for them to address in an honest manner. Naturally, I'm not one to tolerate that sort of dishonest tactic.
Well put.
And thanks for not pointing out the difficulty of assaulting the character of a principle.
Me bad sentence maker.
Weiner is opinionated and fed up, but stupid he is not.
Also, I have my facts right. It SEEMS like the "left" rails against Christianity at every turn, yet is outraged when someone says something other than praising of Muslims, as eveidineced by this entire topic.
Why is this topic even an issue? That's how he feels. So what?
I'd heard some pretty demeaning things about Christianity on the Stephanie Miller Show, but she's an enlightened liberal, so it's OK I guess.
I have my facts right. It SEEMS like the "left" rails against Christianity at every turn
SEEMS is not a fact, it is an opinion. And as such, it cannot be proven.
Come back when you have even the smallest inkling of the foundations of logic, because you don't even know where a clue is located.
I didn't know I was addressing the keeper of all facts and truth.
That's why I was thrown off by your assertion that the left only objects to Christianity, "when someone tells us in matters of faith that their religion is fact." Surely this must always be the case, since thou hast stated it.
I must have simply been mistaked when I heard the Christianity bashing on the Stephanie Miller Show and from others on the "left."
"In THIS day and age, the majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims."
That is false. On September 10, 2001, one of the lead stories on NPR was the attacks on Catholic school girls by Protestants in Northern Ireland. The adults would attack the girls by throwing molotov cocktails at them as they walked to school. I remember this b/c of the strong impression it made on me. I was trying to imagine the mind of an adult who would get their own kids off to school in the morning and go home to their kitchens to mix up a small bomb to throw at someone else's kid.
Another example, ethnic cleansing, which is terrorism, was carried out by Serbian CHRISTIANS agains both Muslims and Catholic Croations in as late as 1995. Some of the tortures and killings included crucifixions of their civilians as well as killing pregnant women and forcing the body parts of the fetuses into the mouths of the baby's fathers. Ironically, the only major media outlet to cover the fact that the war was a religious war by CHRISTIANS agains muslims and catholics was the Christian Science Monitor. Other western mainstream media outlets said that their readers would find it "too disturbing" to read about a religiously motivated war and referred to it as as "ethnic conflict."
And I don't even have the time to go into Latin America now (a Christian culture) - certainly no shortage of organized violence against civilians there.
So dork, let us know when you know what you are talking about.
Since I'm obviously wrong, would you say that the majority of terorist attacks in this day and age are in actuality, done by Christians?
If depends somewhat on how we define the term 'terrorist'. By the definition defined by the Patriot Act I conclude the statement is not correct. All terrorists are not Muslum...some are 'citizens' of the US and one we know of is a professor at a leading education institution...Bill Ayers. His form or terror went from bombing buildings to indoctrinating and coercian of the youth to promote communism, a totally NON Democratic form of government. America has become so 'tolerant' it can't even see the new form of terriorism taking place before it's very eyes...A question about why the LEFT would promote Sharia law? Ask Great Britain....they are there already...they don't promote it, they just 'allow it'...so does Odinga of Kenya...Please wake up America....9/11 was not that long ago and it happened because were lulled to sleep with whispers of 'peace, peace' by our leaders.
"A majority of the terrorists are Muslims."
That was your quote. You have made the claim, and hence, the burden of proof is on you, "Killa." I will accept 51% as "majority." When you have empirically demonstrated that 51% of terrorists are Muslims you have proved your point. Of course, we have to agree on the definition of "Muslim." Is it anyone with an Arabic name? Someone who professes Islam, but does not observe its teachings? That is a tricky point.
I also will require a complete list of all non-muslim terrorists so that we can do the appropriate mathematics to determine whether the burden of 51% has been met. Kindly provide the names of all FARC members, Sikh independence terrorists, Tamil Tigers, members of the Hutu and Tutsi militias in Africa, Serbian militias, Russian mafioso, etc. While you are at it, get the names of all Mexican drug running gangs, which are terrorist groups. Oh, one more group, the KKK. Include their names and the number that have been active or silent supporters.
If you want to know why you are ignorant, I can only suggest you enroll in your local community college and begin an introductory study of world history, world religions, criminal psychology, and perhaps, introductory mathematics (you will need this course to prove your "majority" claim).
PS -would you care to share with the posters at MMFA whom you have killed, "Killa?" If you are killing members of Hezbollah, who has identified them to you, or do you just kill anyone who you think may be a member of Hezbollah? Are you a mercenary "killa" or are you a member of the US, or other, military and therefore, a sanctioned "killa?" Or, are you just a wannabe?
Touché!
I am impressed and humbled by your riposte. There is no way to possibly prove my theory. I am going off of empirical evidence for the creation of my hypothesis. A majority of Muslims practice Islam. I have never heard of a terroist attach commited by a Muslim in the name or glory of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Given the fact that only a small number of terrorist attacks during the last century were commited by Non-Muslims it is a reasonable conclusion that most terrorists are Muslims or at least most terrorist attacks are commited by Muslims.
Good luck with finding support for your hypothesis. Because, you see, in 2004 the Bush-Rice State Department decided to stop publishing Patterns of Global Terrorism when it became clear that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered. Furthermore the account did not include attacks on US troops in Iraq—the so-called front in the fight against International Terrorism. Then current and past officials in the Department have publicly stated the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism. Larry Johnson a former CIA analyst and State Department Terrorism expert said of the Bush Administration:
A number of U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office eliminated Patterns of Global Terrorism when the counterterrorism center declined to use a newly proposed methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks.
Patterns of Global Terrorism was published by the State Department under a law that requires it to submit to the House and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a country-by-country terrorism assessment by April 30 each year.
But since you seem to be party to facts beyond our pay grade I guess you think you can make any claim you want. Who needs proof eh?
I read a very interesting article earlier this week ...there is a 'right' and a left'. We are a nation divided...but I don't believe the majority are extreme right or extreme left...we are bing tugged in that direction for votes...We have to get back to making our choices based on a common goal...
......we have not had a religious right activist GROUP comparable in size or damage attack in the US so to compare the two, beyond definition, is IMHO absurd. While a nutcase claiming to be a Christian bombs an abortion clinic causes much pain and suffering to those he attacked and those he claims to represent...so do these extremist Muslims... you that are throwing mud on Christians due to some individual nutcase, and choosing to ignore the reality of a major Muslim extremist group that has declared war on the US...BEFORE we declared war on them by the way,....need to try to put some reason and rationality to the present reality.....If you group all Right (Christians) to terrorism due to the brutal ignorance of a few, you must also do the same with the Muslim community...stop siding with your politicians who divide us for votes and put your common sense hats back on...to solve the problems America faces today we need to meet in the middle to fix the mess the politicians (ALL parties) have caused. Many in our government are simply out to stay in power, or get in power...it's not about YOU...
exactly!
I suppose that one can also say that not all idiots are right wing radio talk show hosts.
Correct...and not all right wing talk show hosts are idiots...there are extremists on both sides of the fence...it is just that we tend to make allowances for those on OUR particular side...and renounce those on the other....
Tim McVeigh was a muslim?
I guess that means that Ayers isn't a terrorist then because he's not a muslim