Quinn defended suggestion that military response to India attacks is warranted regardless of whether "a lot of peaceful Muslims" are harmed or killed
Responding to a Media Matters item, radio host Jim Quinn defended his suggestion that a military response to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, is warranted regardless of whether "a lot of peaceful Muslims" are harmed or killed. Quinn responded, in part: "[I]f I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful."
On the December 2 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn addressed a Media Matters for America item documenting his suggestion during the previous day's broadcast that "we" should respond to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, with military action even if "a lot of peaceful Muslims" are harmed or killed, as well as his corresponding remark that "there was a lot of Germans that weren't Nazis either, but we still bombed Dresden." Quinn said of his December 1 comments: "Now, of course, again we come back to, 'Yes, but there's a lot of peaceful Muslims on the planet Earth.' Well, that's true. But if I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful, because this is a pox on their house, and they need to cure it themselves."
Later in the December 2 broadcast, Quinn specifically addressed his prior reference to the bombing of Dresden during World War II:
I mean, look at World War II, when I talked about the bombing of Dresden. One of the ways that wars are fought -- and nobody wants to talk about it, but it's the truth -- is you cause so much death and destruction to the civilian population of that nation that eventually the population of the nation loses its zest for the war, and the political support of those waging that war collapses. That's how you win wars. Ugly, isn't it? Sorry. What do you think Hiroshima was about? Hmm? The bottom line is reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking, Media Matters.
Quinn further discussed his October 29 assertion -- also documented by Media Matters -- that "[t]here's only one way to settle the Palestine -- the Palestine issue," and that "is to level it and then salt the earth so that nothing grows for a thousand years, because that's how the Muslims would have treated each other, and did.' " Quinn said of that comment, "Sorry, that's the truth. That is the historical truth, and -- and that's exactly what they would do to us if the technology shoe was on the other foot." Quinn went on to assert, "[T]here have been few religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Mohammad."
Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose among its "Heavy Hundred," which it describes as the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.
From the December 2 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
QUINN: But the reason why Media Matters matters is -- is because they're different from the other blogs. Media Matters for America has a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest is who funds them, and who runs them. Media Matters -- well, here, I'll give you an example. Now, this is the latest one, Media Matters for America:
On December 1 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, while reading from a blog post by London Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips that discussed the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, India, co-host Jim Quinn said, quote: "We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth -- 'Well, you can't say that, because there's a lot of peaceful Muslims out there.' Well, there was a lot of peaceful Germans that weren't Nazis either, but we bombed Dresden. We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth, or we will be doomed to live under it." Quinn continued, saying, "We have the technology. Do we have the spine? Don't answer that if you have trouble sleeping, OK?"
Well, what's interesting to me, of course, is that none of you guys on the left get upset when Muslims say the exact same thing about their desire for Western civilization. I mean, go through the -- go through the Holy Land Foundation trial, and take a look at some of the transcripts from that, and what their intentions are. Their intentions are to do it both peacefully and militarily, and if they can't get it done peacefully, then militarily, but whatever it takes, a global Islamic caliphate is on the way.
Now, of course, again we come back to, "Yes, but there's a lot of peaceful Muslims on the planet Earth." Well, that's true. But if I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful, because this is a pox on their house, and they need to cure it themselves. Because certainly there's -- there's no Islamic supremacist -- which is my word for "Islamic terrorist" -- there's no Islamic supremacist that's gonna be convinced by my -- by any of my arguments.
But it's interesting here just to watch Media Matters and how they -- you know, it's -- and they go on to say, "As Media Matters for America documented." Woo, they documented. You know, all you guys have to do is buy a subscription to our webpage for $39.95 a month -- I'm sure that George Soros can spring for that -- and you could just -- you could just download -- download the podcast for Heaven's sakes. It's like they've got a spy on the ground some place.
"As Media Matters for America documented, Quinn said on October 29, 'There's only one way to settle the Palestine -- the Palestine issue,' and that is to quote, 'level it and then salt the earth so that nothing grows for a thousand years, because that's how the Muslims would have treated each other, and did.' " Unquote. Sorry, that's the truth. That is the historical truth, and -- and that's exactly what they would do to us if the technology shoe was on the other foot. You don't think for a minute that Muslim supremacists with a nuclear weapon wouldn't use it? I mean, are you that foolish?
[...]
And as far as my feelings about supremacist Islam -- hey, guys, I said it before, and I'll say it again: I studied the Quran a great deal, mainly because of our position vis-à-vis the Muslim populations throughout the Middle East. And I must tell you that I came away from the study with the conviction that, by and large, there have been few religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Mohammad.
[...]
Now, we've got all these smart bombs, OK. We've got these special -- we've got -- what -- we've got that thing now -- what is it -- what is it target -- I forget exactly what it is -- technology. You can slip something that's smaller than a dime into some terrorist's robe somewhere, and -- and the rocket will hit him right in the middle of a crowd. You know, I mean, it'll take him right out. And, you know, look, we can park a smart bomb in somebody's window, and that's good when you're dealing with something like terrorism, which is an organization rather than a nation-state. It's also good, I mean -- if you're going up against a nation-state, it's only good if you park one in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bathroom while he's sitting in there taking a dump, but other than that, folks, the way --you have to understand, the ways that wars are fought.
I mean, look at World War II, when I talked about the bombing of Dresden. One of the ways that wars are fought -- and nobody wants to talk about it, but it's the truth -- is you cause so much death and destruction to the civilian population of that nation that eventually the population of the nation loses its zest for the war, and the political support of those waging that war collapses. That's how you win wars. Ugly, isn't it? Sorry. What do you think Hiroshima was about? Hmm? The bottom line is reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking, Media Matters. Reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking. Accept reality or perish.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Another tough-talking Republican Nancy-boy. He would like 999 innocent people killed if it meant he could be less frightened by somebody not liking him.
On today's show, Quinie will be applying a nice coat of honey to his ankles so the ants don't get up to his candy-ass.
Aren't you the one who fought in the war that killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese simply because you didn't like Communism? So, what's your complaint again?
Your questions are more incoherent than usual, Phlibby.I wish I could help you.
this might be a good place to start.
What's up with Media Matters all-of-a-sudden publishing a million articles about this douchebag Quinn? We get it, this guy is a Michael Savage-style neo-Nazi who wants to stuff all Muslims into the furnaces - why haven't we written about him earlier?
The fun part is that Quinn is apparently so bothered by what Media Matters writes about him - you know, like quoting his exact words - that Quinn is answering back...further making a bigger jackass of himself than he already is. I say Media Matters should continue exposing the lunacy of these nut jobs like Quinn and Savage until, hopefully, someday they will be gone.
I don't disagree with you - I just don't get why Media Matters started writed about Quinn just three months ago and now have been writing about him daily. The guy is obviously a jack-booted thug who believes in white supremacy. The guy is so vile that I wouldn't be surprised if Media Matters has to put up this soon...:
Quinn stated that "What Hitler did to the Jews was horrible... [...] ...but we really should consider doing that to the Muslims"
He's that vile, it seems.
I share your head scratching on why these isolated talk radio goon's shock jockery is put here for discussion.
It isn't conservative misinformation, it's a opinion spouted by these people to get noticed.
It isn't furthering any conservative agenda because they only make fools of themselves, the only agenda served is their own, as I said, to garner a little publicity so they feel relevant and somehow topical, and pray it illicits a few "ahhs" by media watchdoggers.
Oh, and red meat.
Tommy,
MMFA highlighting Quinn repeatedly reminds me of way back when Howard Cossell and Muhamad Ali went at it. Conflict sells.
Quinn is just another Michael Savage wannabe. They are talk radio "shock jocks" and Quinn is a local yokel trying to be more outrageous than the next guy so he'll get noticed.
MMFA has a symbiotic relationship with these guys as they need them in order to have something to post. Digging down to this level only shows again that MMFA has jumped the shark.
That makes zero sense. Someone who lowers the public discourse deserves public scorn, therefore it doesn't say anything about those who highlight such behavior.
But out of curiousity, do you believe Quinn's comment is conservative misinformation and/or furthers the conservative agenda?
Perhaps to some extent, depending on what policies you consider "conservative". If you look at the war, then this sort of framework certainly helps to justify it, and I don't think it has any basis in reality.
Personally, I think they should have changed their mission statement years ago to include this sort of thing. Not only does it lower the discourse, but it serves to make conservatives like Hannity or Limbaugh appear to be much more reasonable than they actually are just by comparison.
I think that MMFA is into a little furthering of their own agenda by posting thread topics like this one. Subtly sneaking into the narrative with a wink and a nod blanket projection that many or all conservatives are, well, what some stupid talk show hosts perhaps are. My opinion.
Wink and a nod? They do it because they definately have an agenda they want their minion to follow. And, we see how many (here) follow like lemings over the cliff.
From the "About Us" link on the page:
"Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
I believe the "not credible" part of what Quinn is saying is what they're pointing out here.
What would be something that came out of a conservative that MMFA would consider "credible"?
Oh, I don't know, something that had facts backing it up? I'm just guessing here, or even opinions based on fact.
What's not factual about wanting Muslims to denigrate terrorists as much as the rest of the world does?
But thast isn't the complaint. Nobody is challenging that idea.
news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
Halfway there. But it still needs to forward (and forwards) the conservative agenda.
MMFA has a symbiotic relationship with these guys as they need them in order to have something to post.
Oh if only that was true. You claim MMFA wouldn't have anything interesting to post if they omitted Quinn? Should they let the small slimeballs go unreported and focus only on the famous ones? It is not MMFA that brings Quinn his publicity. These reports are not adding to his popularity.
And Tommy.... "Peaceful muslims have no relevance" is some kind of misinformation. You can't call it democratic misinformation. Just becasue it is someones opinion doesn't exempt it from being reported. That argument is a canard.
"Peaceful muslims have no relevance" is not misinformation, it is strictly opinion. Some opinions are just that, they don't require or warrant some factual backup.
I hate the color purple.
Minnesota is too damn cold to live in.
I don't like that sofa, it's ugly, I like the one over there.
Opinions. Period.
I believe it is extremely important for MMFA, or some other watchdog group, to document any public calls for genocide.
That's what Quinn and Savage have been doing on a regular basis, calling for genocide. The more they preach it, the less heinous it will sound after a while. Then the "targeted bombings" will be tolerated, soon to be followed by carpet bombings (ie mass killings) as anxiety increases.
Look, we (the US) were not directly threatened my the Mumbai attacks, and even the terrorists cited an Indian-Pakistani conflict as their motivation (the Kashmir issue). But since then, listen to how many conservative talk show hosts have used their access to public airwaves to agitate for US military action, explicitely condoning indescriminate killing!
And MMFA should ignore this trend? I don't think so. I think MMFA is right on by highlighting the "mood" on conservative talk radio, b/c it is immoral, unethical, and reminicent of the role radio played in the Rawanda genocide. There is a documented pattern of events that precedes any genocide, and dehumanization of the enemy is step #1. We are witnessing that in these broadcasts.
And BTW, you can add Dennis Miller to the list of talkers who used the airwaves to call for the US to bomb Pakistan. And I 'm sure there are many others who just haven't been published on the list - yet.
Unless you can demonstrate to me that these buffoons have any say or sway or influence or direct pipeline to public policy makers, and their calls for "genocide" will result in decisions at the highest level of our government to act on their words, then I will share your concern.
Until then, I will continue to believe they are essentially worthless and meaningless shock jock radio stiffs who will say just about anything provocative to get attention.
The rationality of the public discourse is important whether an affect on public policy can be demonstrated or not.
That wasn't matrix's defense of these postings though, which was what I specifically responded too.
By the time any sort of government-level activity reflects the tone of this speech, it's too late. You shouldn't let them achieve step #1 in the first place.
"You shouldn't let them achieve step #1 in the first place."
Isn't that what matrix claimed mmfa's job is? Now, how do you relate their (mmfa) mission to the mission of Savage-type shock jocks? More importantly, how are they different? Which means, if you can't come up with a reasonable explanation, Savage and mmfa are exactly the same, only from different spectrums of the political fence.
So because MMfA highlights the dehumanization of the members of an entire religion, that somehow makes them comparable to people like Savage? First you have to point out what is wrong with that effort. How is it irresponsible or irrational to call someone out for this sort of behavior?
They both have political points of view, yes. That doesn't mean they're "the same", because the nature of their respective actions are very different. The phrase "different spectrums of the political fence" is one of the best mixed metaphors I've seen, by the way.
"So because MMfA highlights the dehumanization of the members of an entire religion, that somehow makes them comparable to people like Savage?"
When they do it using misinformation and irresponsible behavior (just like you claim Savage-type people do), they are the same. Just because you agree with the behavior of one doesn't make it right, while the other is wrong just because you disagree with them. If you think that way, then you are no different (or better) than the idiots who follow the Savage-type people.
Amen. The reality here Philib, IMO, is that nobody really cares what Quinn says or thinks except for the choir he preaches to. He doesn't influence public policy. My guess is that if MMFA didn't highlight this buffoon, then practically nobody here would have know anything about it, but now that they do, MMFA has accomplished nothing more than to have a handful of people (who should probably working) comment on it.
I agree with Tommy here. When it can be shown that people like Quinn can influence public policy by these comments, then they deserve to be highlighted. Until then, he is nothing more than a shock jock trying to gain attention and guess what? MMFA has helped him do just that.
Personally, I believe Quinn is a crazed war monger who is eager to extoll the virtues of war and speak of war as if he knows about it, but the truth is that he had a chance to go to war and guess what? He didn't. That should tell you just about all you need to know about Mr. Quinn and why he says things like this.
There's a pretty big piece missing from your argument there. You have to demonstrate how MMfA is using misinformation or acting irresponsibly here. It'll be pretty difficult to show how their behavior is on the same level as someone like Savage, no matter what.
It's pretty dishonest to argue "they are the same" and then qualify it with some criteria that you aren't making any attempt to meet. I could say you're the same as John Wayne Gacy if you killed a bunch of kids and buried them in your crawlspace.
" You have to demonstrate how MMfA is using misinformation or acting irresponsibly here."
Well, so do you concerning Quinn. How can Quinn stating his opinion be "acting irresponsibly"? And, your anology about Gacy would be correct. If that happened then the comparison could be made. Thus, that's how I came up with the comparison between Savage-like people and mmfa....they are the same type of outlet--- they spew hatred and non-sense. You just choose to like the hatred that mmfa spews and you hate the hatred Savage-types spew.
It's irresponsible to call for the deaths of innocent people. What he's saying is tantamount to a call for genocide.
What "hatred" or "nonsense" is displayed here? Show specific examples of items that rely on hatred, and then demonstrate how they're on the same level as what Savage says or remotely similar to dehumanizing Muslims in general.
Let's drag out a favorite right-wing comparison:
Adolf Hitler started out as an enraged loon dragging down the public discourse, and he wound up with absolute power and commenced the slaughter of millions of innocents.
Adolf Hitler played the suffering German 'normal' folk like a fiddle and convinced them they needed to rule the world. Then used his tweeked ideas of who should live and die to achieve HIS goal.
Sorry Pete, I don't play the slippery slope game when it's used against the left, and I don't play it when it's used against the right.
No disengenuous apologies necessary.
I wasn't apologizing, even though your snarky response doesn't deserve one.
So when you say you're sorry, you're really not sorry. GOT IT.
But to go to your point, we most likely disagree on the best way to combat such lowering of the discourse, and the most effective way to ultimately make it go away, for we do agree it is poisonous and serves no valuable purpose.
If I am wrong correct me, but I think you believe the best way is to shine a light on it, expose it, repeat it, get it out there.
I believe the best way for it to go away is to not listen to it, to ignore it, definitely not repeat it, let it die a slow lonely death. Highlighting it emboldens it and breeds more of it, in my opinion. Those that live and die of this stuff are nothing without an audience, which gives them relevance and rises this crap to some level far above where it should be. Ignoring it, "meh", is what they absolutely do not want.
But I know we disagree on this, as we have before. It's cool.....
"shine a light on it, expose it, repeat it, get it out there"
You can also rebut it with facts, logic, reality, and civilized, informed opinion. You can also provide a forum to publicly debate it where all are welcome, like MMFA does.
I don't disagree with that. But some nuttiness just can't be refuted with logic or facts, it's just too damn stupid and doesn't dignify such a response. That was my point with stuff like this.
How about the fact that they sway the masses? We've already seen a few examples of their listeners opening fire on churches for being liberal. Why should we wait for them to demonstrate affecting decisions at the highest levels of government before we do something about it?
Snoop, As I said, I don't blame Quinn if somebody burns a church, it shifts the responsibility from where it should be, on the person who actually did it, to someone else. I am not comfortable with that. It may be a way to excuse it, but I put the blame where it belongs.
Tommy, I would disagree with that. It expands the responsibility, not shifts it. Unless I'm reading your statement wrong, I'd walk away with the impression that Hitler's generals should have been exonerated for carrying out his orders based on your statement of how you see that.
What? Hitler's generals did his orders, of course they are responsible. As is Hitler for ordering it. I repeat, I don't blame person A for person B's actions, unless person B specifically ordered person A to committ some act, that is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about taking responsibility for one's actions. If someone told you to jump off a bridge and you did it, it's not their fault you did it, it's yours.
Exactly, tommy. I knew you got it. What I don't get is why you keep suggesting these nutbags aren't taking a cue from the radio heads? I'm talking responsibility too, the gunner and the instigator. I don't recall anyone here suggesting the gunner not be held responsible for the crime, rather I recall people like me stating that the instigators be held responsible as well. I see no difference between savage saying he wants liberals rounded up and exterminated and Jim Jones passing out kool aid to his followers. Many of them willingly drank it. Are you saying Jones isn't responsible for them, so he really only forced a dozen or so to commit suicide?
"Unless you can demonstrate to me that these buffoons have any say or sway or influence or direct pipeline to public policy makers"
The all-star right-wing professional liars have made closed-door visits to the Bush White House, but that's about as demonstrative as it gets.
Unless you can demonstrate to me that these buffoons have any say or sway or influence or direct pipeline to public policy makers, and their calls for "genocide" will result in decisions at the highest level of our government to act on their words, then I will share your concern.
So if hate talkers like Quinn have an influence on the voting public (which they probably do) but not on politicians who are already if office that's OK. You're not concerned.
So then let's assume that Quinn does have a viable influence on the voting public. Should his right to free speech then be called into question?
Great point Chris.
Nope, you have no point, Chris.
Here we go with the First Amendment crap again.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH.
It's about the people who sponsor and enable this garbage.
Quinn has every right to spout this crap on a street corner all he wants. The Constitution does not guarantee him a microphone and a radio tower. That is a priviledge given to him by people with money.
More whining from the left on right wing radio, when will it ever end?
Just my opinion, Tommy. If you don't like it, that's your business.
You're finally getting it. Absolutely agree....
My opinion is that I find it amusing that in your opinion, Chris "had a point" while I was "whining."
Huh? Chris was asking a direct question, and made a good point. You just went on about rich people enabling right wing radio, a whine heard here all the time.
Wrong, Chris had no point.
Quinn's free speech rights are not being called into question. That also is a whine heard here all the time.
I don't concern myself with wacko influences from any fringe ideology and how it may influence another wacko. Left or right. If you think it's one-sided, you are naive. I prefer to deal with the adults, not bobbleheaded robots who can't think for themselves.
"If you think it's one-sided, you are naive."
Name a prominent lefty calling for the slaughter of innocents on the radio.
OK, that's a narrow scope. There are others you can use.
For example...
Name a prominent lefty calling for gun owners to shoot federal agents in the head.
There must be something that a liberal has spewed that you can cite to support the 'both sides' argument.
So there is no fringe wackos on the left? OK
I didn't say there wasn't. I was asking you to back up your argument. But all you can do is accuse me of making one.
Then you had no rebuttal because that was my exact argument, that fringe wackiness exists on both sides. I wasn't talking degrees, obviously talk radio produces some of the most vile crap from the right that is out there, you will get no argument from me on that. But the left has it's share on other media outlets, and if they're words influence some nut to do something crazy I wouldn't blame them either. It's the person who does it, nobody else.
Sorry, not "they're", it should be "their"
You still equated the fringe left with the vileness of Quinn. And you still have no names to offer up. And I'm not surprised.
There are three kinds of listeners to this scum and others like him. First, the folks who actually respect and admire and SHARE his hate. Second, the people who are drawn to his drivel out of a morbid curiosity, and third, those of US, at MMFA who like to feel superior, taking comfort in the knowledge we are not idiots. Well, not complete idiots, anyway. Nobody's perfect.
We are superior, Dog...and we won the damn electtion, too. Wooo-hoooo... ;>)
maddogg, I certainly don't need a Quinnie around to make me feel superior. A jerk just like this person told me that I acted like I was better than him, my response, "Who's acting?".
Keep it up MM..this loony is ready to blow a gasket because people in Pgh. are start to call his advertisers...OUCH!!!
And by the way, WHO in their right mind would pay $39.95 for a monthly subscription to this bum and Radio Rose? This answers the question of what type of person listens to him and that making money off these dopes is what it is all about for Quinnie and the good Christian lady. $39.95 a month..only in America.
pow,
I don't know where you got the $39.95/mo. I have XM and it is $12.95/mo. XM is cool. Besides, it is the only place I can listen to Air America. :-)
However right now I am in my post election decompression, licking my wounds, and getting away from 24/7 politics. (I'm down to 2/5 here on MMFA.) I am enjoying XM's merger with Sirius and specifically "blue collar radio comedy channel". I don't care who you are, that stuff is funny!
POW got it from the item:
Quinn: "You know, all you guys have to do is buy a subscription to our webpage for $39.95 a month"
But I think Quinn meant to say $39.95 per year, since his website says $39 per year.
Maybe I'm missing something.
So to use this sorry, skinfull of shít's analogy, if his parents and kids were in a room with terrorists, it's OK with him if we kill them all.
It might have something to do with the fact that his family is white and Christian and is very unlikely to be in that room.
"But if I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful, because this is a pox on their house, and they need to cure it themselves."
Perfectly reasonable analysis. So, when the 1 billion or so Muslims are all in one room together, they should absolutely rise up against the terrorist Muslims and that will cure the pox on their house, or in this case, their room.
Let us know, Mr. Quinn, when we can round them up in that room together, wow, this is so easy.
Tommy,
Have you read or heard lately Dennis Prager or read Ben Shapiro's latest column regarding Muslim extremists?
Dennis believes that the anti-semitism of the muslim extremists is a fundamental part of their world view. As evidence, he points to the savage butchering of the rabbi and wife in Mubai.
Until that muslim anti-semitism changes, I doubt we'll ever see muslim rise up against muslim.
AA, I haven't read it, but absolutely extremists are extreme in their hatred for anyone who is not of their "belief system", for lack of better words. But I don't blame peace loving decent Muslims for the actions of idiots. Would I like to see a worldwide coordinated effort by those peace loving Muslims to be more public in their condemnation of extremists? Yes, but I don't blame them either. I wish for alot of things.
There is an editorial in the Chicago Tribune today about how the major media outlets don't use the voices of outraage in the muslim world effectively:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped1203freelancedec03,0,2560858.story
It sounds like part of it is culture gap - in that western media outlets are unable to identify, or not familiar enough, with the individuals in Arab or Asian societies who have credibility in their cultures. I remember one CNN interview with Al-Sharif (spoken of in the article) and I believe he does not speak English which indicates how he would be easily overlooked by an English-speaking journalist looking for "voices" in the middle east. Al-Sharif apparently gave Al-Qaeda a run for their money on the ideological ground which is what people here keep wishing to see - however, it wasn't reported here.
I forget who (maybe Matthews), but I heard someone talking about the glaring difference between the tepid reaction among muslim countries (particularly pakistan) to the random murders committed in India, and their utterly ridiculous reaction to a few cartoons. A few funny cartoons of their precious prophet draws thousands upon thousands of the thug morons to riot in the streets, while the mass unprovoked murder of 100s of non-believers evokes nowhere near the same kind of outcry. Their priorities are a bit backwards in my view.
And just think... if MMFA had not posted this item, you wouldn't have had the priviledge of sharing this critique over the internet in a low-traffic forum.
The information so far is from one tortured survivor. I don't call this a creditable source.
So the idea here is that there are 999 Muslims who "love" him, but wouldn't stop one from killing him because they all share the same goal of religious world domination, and that sentiment trumps any moral considerations for the life of a Christian person?
That is some impressive wingnuttery right there, you have to admit.
"peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful"
Well, it seems that sentiment could cut both ways. Using this douchebag's logic, Bin Ladin could argue that the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 "had no relevance" because they didn't rise up and stop some American from committing some affront in the past.
I know that Conservatives have trouble with analogies, but can't they see this?
I don't think they can. Alot of them anyway. While they might be able to utter the phrase "peaceful Muslims," they so strongly associate "Muslim" with "evil" and "American" with "good" that any comparison between the two is nonsensical to them.
Nerzog,
Of course Quinn's assertions are ridiculous, and I don't know what he is but if he calls himself a conservative, then this piece of idiocy from him flies in the face of that. For to a conservative, at least to me, one is responsible for their own actions, nobody else is. To blame person A for the actions of person B is unfair, unwarranted, unrealistic and just plain dumb.
I agree with you that Quinn is ridiculous.
Nerzog and Craig are just doing the same thing as Quinn only they don't realize it. They are making the same type of biggoted comments about a group of people, in this case, conservatives. Comments like theirs are no different than Quinn's in tone or content.
Craig specifically said "A lot of them, anyway", which is not speaking about all conservatives.
Uh, so where to Nerzog and Craig advocate the wholesale slaughter of Conservatives (as Quinn is advocating the wholesale slaughter of Muslims)? I didn't see either of Nerzog or Craig post that.
Your comparison comes up short.
Thanks, I was about to say the same thing. I am quite guilty of generalizing, because I'm too lazy to say "some" or "most" every time I vilify conservatives. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.
However, to say that my generalization of Conservative shortcomings is "no different in tone or content" than calling for indiscriminate killing of innocent people is just.... nippledicky.
AA,
I think we all do it here sometimes. Make overreaching slaps against a group of people who share a certain political ideology because we are engaged in a heated disagreement with someone from the "other side". I have said it with "liberals" before, so I guess it's best to stick to the specific individual, instead of extraolating their views on anyone else. It isn't fair when anyone does it, I agree with you.
"extraolating"
extrapolating
You're right, Tommy. Generalizations are dangerous, and I wasn't as precise as I should have been. I do believe that there is a portion of the population, largely conservative, that has a fundamentally different mindset than another, largely liberal, portion of the population, and that this difference makes it nearly impossible for the two groups to understand each other on certain issues.
For example, to me Nerzog's is right that the arguments of Quinn and Savage could be used by Bin Laden to justify the 9/11 attacks. But to others, even making that comparison would be atrocious and probably seen as the product of a defective or delusional mind.
At any rate, I certainly didn't mean to include you in that group. ;-)
My mind may be either defective or delusional, but I'm relatively harmless.
Seriously, I think the disconnect lies in SOME conservatives' inability to admit that Americans could ever do anything which MIGHT be considered wrong or provocative by other cultures.
As a result of this jingoistic xenophobic mindset, Bush and his toadies told us that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms". What a crock. They're pi$$ed off at something that we've done or that they think we've done. It doesn't justify what they did to us on 9/11, but it makes more sense than the childish notion that they "hate freedom". SOME conservatives just can't bring themselves to admit this obvious truth.
In the course of human evolution, group loyalty has been a vital trait for survival. However, IMO it has outgrown its usefulness in modern society and is now often a detriment to it. Bin Laden has exploited it and in their own way so has Bush et al.
P.S. I'm not buying that you're harmless.
Replace "outgrown" with "outlived."
It may be a utopian fantasy, but the more we work across cultural lines, the better off we'll be as a species. The problems facing us are global in nature, and we can't solve them if we keep killing each other.
I know that dealing with terrorists, once they're terrorists, requires force. The trick is to prevent children from growing up to be terrorists. I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure that bombing their villages and killing their parents is a bad start.
The final scene in "Charlie Wilson's War" comes to mind. If we hadn't turned our backs on Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out... who knows?
Whatever money we might have spent on humanitarian aid at that point would certainly have been cheaper than what we've spent since 9/11.
Just a thought.
Bin Laden already has used the logic of Quinn. They claim innocent ciitzens of a democratic country are not innocent because they chose their government and are responsible for it's actions.
Amen to that Nance!
Instead of writing to Quinn, who is a moron incapable of understanding what he's saying, write to his sponsors. When I wrote to Quinn he denied that America tortures (waterboarding is just a walk in the park) and said that FDR started a preemptive war just like Bush. There's just no arguing with such vast imbecility. I've also exchanged a few emails with his cohort, Rose, and she's not much better.
I've written to the sponsors, too. One of them "Magic Mist" carpet cleaning actually answered rather thoughtfully. Another one also responded, I forget the company but his name is Bruce and he sells Beef Jerkey. He is as big of a jackbooted thug as Quinn. Not a surprise. But it's a good thing to let them know that they are making people disgusted with anyone associated with the ignorant stupidity promoted by this asinine radio program. Even a jerk can comprehend that alienating a large group of people is not the best way to sell jerky.
Thank you Media Matters for alerting us to the spreaders of hatred and division in our country. It's important to find them, expose them and weed them out. People like Quinn are the reason suicide bombers feel justified in their reprehensible religiously motivated murdering.
Quinn and Rose are Christian terrorists -- they're just like the Muslim terrorists but too cowardly to strap on a bomb for their cause.