Savage on the Mumbai attacks: "Should the tribal areas in Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all?"
SUMMARY: Discussing the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, Michael Savage said: "Should the tribal areas of Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all? Should we nuke the tribal areas in Pakistan's wild-man region and wipe out the terrorists once and for all?" Savage later added: "What the heck do we have nuclear weapons for? What are tactical nuclear weapons for but to wipe out an enemy? The enemy lives there -- kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them."
During the November 26 broadcast of The Savage Nation, host Michael Savage discussed the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that had started earlier that day and said, "[T]he question to you is, what should the U.S. government do right now? Should the U.S. military be deployed? Should the tribal areas of Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all? Should we nuke the tribal areas in Pakistan's wild-man region and wipe out the terrorists once and for all?" Later, responding to a caller's assertion that "[W]e need to exterminate them like rats," Savage said, "Yeah, we know where they're coming from. ... [T]hey're in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. What the heck do we have nuclear weapons for? What are tactical nuclear weapons for but to wipe out an enemy? The enemy lives there -- kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them." Savage later added, "[T]here's no question that entire region needs to be annihilated and stripped off the earth."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has previously advocated attacking other countries. On the October 29, 2007, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Savage played the song "Everybody's Dixie" by recording artist Bobby Horton, and said: "Yee-haw! This is the America -- this is the America that those Islamic-fascist, robe-wearing, throwback bums have never seen!" Savage repeatedly said, "Let's bring it on! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now!," and then demanded, "Get every hunter in America armed to the teeth!" He continued: "Throwback bastards! I'm so sick of them! I'm so sick of the brainwashing about Islam and Muslims and the Koran! Shove it! Shove it all! I'm sick of it!"
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 November 26 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: They have set a landmark hotel, the Taj [Mahal] hotel, on fire. Screams can be heard in the background. Enormous clouds of black smoke are rising from the century-old edifice on Mumbai's waterfront. The fact of the matter is, India is at war, only you don't know it. And the question to you is, what should the U.S. government do right now? Should the U.S. military be deployed? Should the tribal areas of Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all? Should we nuke the tribal areas in Pakistan's wild-man region and wipe out the terrorists once and for all? Is this a result of Bush's weakness? Is this a result of Bush's catering to Islamic fanatics? Is this a result of the FBI saying you cannot use the word "Islamic" in relationship to terrorism? Is this a result of Obama's weakness? Is this a result of the financial meltdown? Is this connected in some way to the threat against the New York subway system that we heard about earlier today? Is this retaliation for the pirate attack? Is this some way related to anything other than more of the same, which is Islamic madness against the world? Mad Islamic fanatics taking it out on Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, anybody but the fanatics. Is this a result of anything other than insanity? I will open up the lines to you on The Savage Nation.
[...]
CALLER: We in the Western world and the United States -- I don't see how we're gonna win this, because we do not have the guts, we don't have the stomach to do the things it takes to be violent enough, to fight fire with fire and give these -- I mean, basically, we need to exterminate them like rats, and we're so worried about --
SAVAGE: Yeah, we know where they're coming from, we know they're coming out of the -- the training, at least, is probably coming out of the area where Osama bin Laden is hiding. If we can believe our intelligence agencies -- of course, we have no real knowledge as to whether they're really intelligent intelligence agencies -- they're in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. What the heck do we have nuclear weapons for? What are tactical nuclear weapons for but to wipe out an enemy? The enemy lives there -- kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them. Why must we sit here waiting for the New York subways to go up in flames?
CALLER: Yes, sir, but what are we gonna do? Instead of what you just said, what we're gonna do is we're gonna cut our nuclear arsenal.
[...]
SAVAGE: The only way to defend ourselves against these fanatic Islamists is with strength. Not with hand-wringing, not with the United Nations, but with a strong and swift attack on the tribal regions of western Pakistan. Now, I will not quibble with you as to whether they should be with nuclear -- that is, tactical nuclear weapons, which are limited in their scope and limited in their power -- or with cluster bombs or with weapons I'm not even aware of. But there's no question that entire region needs to be annihilated and stripped off the earth.
Oh? Really Mr Savage.....
But the guy in the White House... you know... Cheney....er... Bush... who can tell?
Anyways..... They have told us that Pakistan is our ally in the War on Terror!!
So... which is it Mr Weiner-Savage? Pakistan or the Bush regime? Which is/are the bad guys? Destroy whom?
Huh? What's that? Both? Neither? How can that be....?
As for nuking them..... and your question as to... What do we have nukes for?
Well.... I have to say that I agree on asking that question as well..... but I get the feeling that the expected or accepted answer that you want will be different than mine... as for whether we should nuke them? Well.....you are crazy... I am not!
Yes of course, in much the same way that we should nuke Iran. Also, we should have murdered everyone living in Vietnam in order to save them.
It's not ok to kill innocent people.
I was joking moron.
I agree. No comma needed.
You forgot to put the word 'a' between was and joking.
This type of attitude was common among "conservatives" after the 9/11 attacks. When I suggested that we should make an effort to identify the guilty parties, they called me anti-American and said that it didn't matter. After all, they're all just "towelheads and sandni**ers".... kill 'em all!
I actually had one fine fellow say, "Well, somebody has to pay for 9/11!"
As for the use of nukes, I think Weenie, like too many armchair cowboys, draws his foreign policy attitudes from video games.
Boyo what consistency, If theres something wrong, find a likely population to "Nuc". Maybe he's caging for a job with the North Korean Administration.
I don't think their crasy enough for him myself.
Dennis Prager today was using the Mumbai tragedy as support for his argument for concealed carry gun permits.Brilliant!
I guess the black and white thinkers are unwilling to admit that terrorism is a complex problem and will require a complex solution.
Furthermore, I thought invading and occupying Iraq was supposed to keep all the terrorists too busy to do stuff like this.... oh, wait... not all terrorists are IN Iraq! Who knew?
When you try to kill cockroaches, don't they run away to somewhere else. Then when you move there to kill them, don't they run away again? Hmmm, roaches run to another place when attacked...terrorists run to another place when attacked. Seems to be a similarity there. What do you do when your house is infested with cockroaches? Oh, yeah, but you seem to hate that idea for terrorists. Whose side are you on, anyway? Never mind, you're a liberal ... I know whose ideals you support.
So, if the cockroaches run to your neighbors house, do you burn down his house?
Idiot.
If my neighbor is the one giving safe haven to the cockroaches, yes.
moron. Wow, it's fun calling names when I run out of arguements...just like you!
Philib, knowing that people like you exist in this country is the # one reason why I keep my guns in good working order and ready.
Seeing how prejudice you are against people with an opinion tells me there should be tighter gun control in America!
Ask Plaxico Burress how that concealed weapon worked out for him...
Brains and brawn are a mutually exclusive quantity in this case. Whe i first read this, i had thought the gun just went off in his pants and nothing said about being in a bar. the news media has a bad habit if " leaking " out news in bits and pieces manipulating the public's perception of what is really happened. this guy brought a gun to the bar and it was loaded.
It was hilarious! He was being escorted to the VIP section of a titty bar and a gun went off in his pants! Oh, god! Can you imagine that conversation?
titty bar chick: What was that noise?
PB: My gun just went off in my pants.
titty bar chick: I'm sorry to hear that, but you still owe me $100 for the lap dance.
I always assumed that the profanity filter would nix the word "titty".
How delightful that it does not!
or this guy
I always loved that video. Was that Plaxico?
Who oviously never took and passed a NRA firearms safet class...like remove the the magazine first
That's just not fair. What if you're still reading the magazine?
What got me was our president was actively dividing this nation into either you are for us or you are with the terrorrists which in reality gave these bozo's permission to be anti-american themselves thru their actions.
I didn't realize Bush was in power when American citizens were taken hostage in 79. Why did they hate us then? Oh, because they knew Bush would take power some day and create such a vial America that they would eventually hate and want to destroy that way of life. Sheesh, revisionist history is so hard to understand when explained by liberals. But, wait... they attacked India! What did India do to muslims that caused that action? From what I heard only a few Americans were killed. I guess what you're saying is that since India is on the same planet as America then terrorists can freely attack them, too? Try to explain how hatred of America somehow authorizes attacks against a different soveriegn nation.
Well done, Philib. I'd wager those voices in your head think twice before challenging you to another debate.
Seriously, could you ever make an attempt at keeping your rants somewhere in the neighborhood of what's actually being discussed?
I should talk about Plaxico Burris?? Or should I talk about Dennis Prager?? I thought this thread was about Savage whining again.
I love the "nuke" 'em crowd, sort of reminds me of a movie I saw once...
Anyway, so we did drop a tactical nuclear weapon into the tribal regions of Pakistan. Here is what happens. Pakistan launches a first strike against India. Why? Because they're on our side more so than Pakistan. Then what happens? Well, whatever nuclear weapons left in India after Pakistan's strike, if they haven't been launched already, get lobbed into Pakistan. And then, there is a good chance China might feel threatened, and maybe, just maybe, they drop a few for good measure. Why not invade Taiwan while they're at it, and take back the ROC right? The rest of the region is now at war, nobody is going to notice when they roll into Taiwan, except for, of course, the US. Because we've pledged to defend Taiwan against aggression from China, should that ever happen.
So now we have the US fighting China, Pakistan and India demolishing each other, possibly billions of people dead, and what for really?
Not to mention the fallout from the nuclear weapons, and the many radiation deaths that come years down the road, plus not being able to inhabit those places for quite some time, and where are you going to put the displaced Indians and Pakistanis?
Yeah, great idea Savage. Why don't we just lob a nuclear weapon into an already un-stable region.
Mag, you just have to stop letting logic get in the way of a good right-wing nuclear (or nucular) fantasy.
I think some people actually fantasize about living in the world depicted in "Mad Max".
They think the "pockyclypse" would be fun.
"So now we have the US fighting China, Pakistan and India demolishing each other, possibly billions of people dead, and what for really?"
Let's ask the terrorists. They seem to be the aggressors in every action of violence in the world. But, I guess that doesn't count for anything, huh? I guess in your way of thinking to protect your citizens from violent thugs is not allowed? But, with your new president coming in who promises to attack Pakistan and Iran, I guess your complaint will fall on deaf ears. Maybe he's the one who will fullfill your prophecy. Sorry, Biden already predicted that one! Gotta love change .... 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
As I expected. No reply about WHO the REAL agressors are in the conflicts around the world. Liberals sure love the terrorists, don't they?
Nah, I think Michael the Dolt needs to ride it down, like the Slim Pickens character in "Dr. Strangelove." That way he could target only the baddies.
Ahhh, so you are in favor of killing people ... as long as they are people YOU don't like! Isn't that line of thinking that caused the 'the world hates America' mantra of you liberals?
OK, not to long ago these same idiots were getting all mouthy and claiming Obama said he'd just go in and attack them with or without pakistan's permission and this was a dangerous and ignorant policy. Now they want to go in and attack them with or without pakistan's permission. How ironic (and completely insane) is that?
I would call it typical of them.
Who called it "ignorant"? I know when I was ranting about O'bama's desires and promises to attack Iran and Pakistan I claimed it was because he was just the same as Bush---a war monger. I never said it was ignorant. Now, tell me, how is O'bama different from Bush again?
I haven't followed the story that closely. Can someone tell me WTF the "tribal areas of Pakistan" have to do with what happened in Mumbai?
Suspicions are that the attacks were carried out by terrorists trained by Lashkar-i-Tayyaba, an anti-India militant group in Pakistan.
Apparently the decades-old conflict between India and Pakistan is yet more residue from the dissolution of the British Empire. Seems to be a lot of that in the Middle East...
And, since America also became a nation from the dissolution of the British Empire, we are at fault for causing this decades-old conflict?
Probably, nothing...
The "tribal areas of Pakistan" are also supposedly the main hideout of Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. At least that's what I hear from "the media" which often seem to be a propaganda machine for the military-industrial-government complex. But what do I know?
Good god! I know nothing about this guy but what I read here is he really this crazy? I am sure he has a couple of million wingnuts drooling over his every word . Yep let's stir a a nuclear war since Bushie has 55 days or so left Obama doesn't seem fazed by the current mess so heap on so more
In one word, yes.
Yes, this man is either this deranged, or as many have pointed out before, it could all just be an act.
that's always been my guess:
" it could all just be an act"
all the way to the bank.
If he's really crazy, or if it's just an act, the end result is the same.
Hamlet knew how to act crazy. Weiner isn't in control of the act any more.
OK, Savage's entire show tonight (Monday Dec 1) was devoted to the India terrorist event. He is still plugging for extreme measures. He is calling impotent (some projection there) any and all governments (including Isreal) who don't go barreling into Pakistan with guns drawn.
The guy is dangerous. The last thing we need are people on the public airwaves ratcheting up the tensions. Predictably, he pontificated that it is the fault of "Islam". He used the typical phrases of hate mongerers, "those people" "these people" "they will dominate us all" "they want to slit our throats".
To just look at these phrases in print is so chilling, but it is typical "talk" on the Savage Nation. Why does the FCC allow this guy to continue? As I've asked before in this forum, do we have to wait until he "inspires" someone to go an a killing rampage before anyone holds him responsible for what he says?
He is justifying the killing of civilians in Pakistan by claiming that "no one in the Muslim world speaks out against" the terrorists. Duh! How many Islamic countries are involved with us in the War on Terror? God, how can people assign this guy any credibility? And they just keep calling up and telling him how great he is. Morons!
Where was Savage when we attacked Iraq for 911, two years after 911?
To him, they (all countries that have Muslims, including US) are all rats. To me, it was the Taleban government in Afganisthan in 2001 that were the rats and deserved to be killed/extermiated. They were very localized, at that time too.
Thank Rumsfeld and other neocons (like Savage) that Pakistan is going down the drain by the day.
Their ilk see smoke coming out of a house and want to bomb the whole community and rebuild, without analyzing the cause for the smoke.
Hiding in his house, counting his blood money.
right next to all the liberals.
Why would all of the liberals be in Weiner's house? Come on Phlibby, you're not even trying to make sense anymore. Are you loaded this early in the morning?
i've noticed the same thing about a certain poster not making much sense this morning. I was especially interested in learning that "America became a nation from the dissolution of the British Empire".
I always thought it was due to our defeating the English in some type of revolutionary war. I'm old but not old enough to remember the American Revolution . I assumed that my teachers were right about how we became a nation. I guess that was foolish of me
"I assumed that my teachers were right about how we became a nation. I guess that was foolish of me"
Yes. That must be why you got drafted ... you failed in school. How did any nation get rid of British rule?
"Kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them."
In other words: Let's be just like terrorists!
You know, this... really disturbs me. He's advocating genocide (and so is Jim Quinn, apparently). Is the fact that there isn't widespread outrage a reflection of their lack of influence, or is it that this line of thinking is actually bordering on the conservative mainstream?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of who needs to be "exterminated" here. Islamic extremists who are actively involved in planning terrorist attacks and training for terrorist attacks are the #1 target in these remote tribal regions of pakistan/afghanistan. So called "innocent" villages of people who allow these terrorists to move among them and live among them are the #2 target, because they are aiding and abetting the enemy. That basically sums up all the people living in these remote areas where Islamic terrorism is born and bred. Very few to zero innocents would die in a large scale coordinated bombing of these remote areas. We aren't talking about bombing Karachi here. We aren't talking about killing all muslims. We aren't talking about killing all people who are Arab or Indian. Your use of "genocide" is wrong, and you clearly have no knowledge of the geography of the region being referred to here. My bet is that you would not be able to even locate this region on blank map.
Right! There are only about 3.5 million people in FATA. And another 4.5 million in Azad Kashmir (lots of terrorists there!). So all told, about 8 million terrorists and abetters needing extermination. That's only around 5% of the population of Pakistan. Hardly genocide!
Genocide, defined: "The annihilation of an Ethnic group or race based solely on account of their race or Ethnicity."
1. 5% of the Pakistan population is not an entire ethnic group or race. 2. We would not be killing these people based on race or ethnicity, but rather for the responsibility they bear for acts of terrorism and mass murder against people in all parts of the world, and their allowing the training and planning to continue in these areas. 3. Obviously, the way we have been fighting them isn't working so well. In a war that is lasting far longer than WWII, we should have all these rats fried. We need to change our methods. A few quick bombs, and we can have most of our troops home, and stop spending so much money fighting a PC war. Plus, we'll have a heap of dead terrorists.
And an even larger heap of dead innocent women, men, and children (the "rats"). Probably significantly more than the 200+ who were killed in this attack. Is that worth it? If Americans went into Pakistan and killed 200 people, would you be prepared for Pakistan to bomb the living daylights out of our country, "exterminating" the terrorists "and their families" "like rats" ? After all, you lived here and didn't stop them, so you were aiding and abetting those terrorists, right? Would that be okay with you?
And nice touch, imagining that kyorosuke has a poor understanding of geography, but its not Arabs and certainly not Indians living in the tribal areas. It's mostly Pashtuns.
I sympathize though. It must be tough keeping track of all the people who scare the crap out of you.
If you listen to what he's saying, and what he's said dozens of times before, he doesn't just want to "wipe out" the "wild man regions", and those are from the only people he wants to "exterminate like rats". Savage isn't talking strategy. He's not really reacting to the Mumbai attacks at all. He's using it as an excuse to advocate the indiscriminate "extermination" of millions upon millions of people, with nuclear weapons. In a country that possesses its own nuclear weapons. That train of thought, that sort of rhetoric, it doesn't bother you at all? It doesn't make you think that this is not as black-and-white as he puts it?
No, I think he is reacting to the 12,356 Islamic terrorist attacks that have happened in every corner of the world since 9/11. In November 2008 alone, 191 attacks in 16 countries that ended up with 856 dead bodies and 1568 critically injured. I'm sick of this, Savage is sick of this. Every single day, Islamic terrorists are killing and attacking people ("infidels"). Our best intelligence says the heart of the planning and training is located in the remote tribal regions of Pakistan. You might not care because the attacks don't happen here very often, but I'm sick of them. Exterminate radical Islamic terrorists and break the will of nations who sponsor terrorism.
You think I don't care "because the attacks don't happen here very often" ? I can assure that I was disgusted, disheartened, and saddened when I first heard the news of the Mumbai attacks. And it is that reason that I'm saying that more mass, indiscriminate violence is not the best way to defeat terrorism.
Incidentally, assuming you're right and the only way to stop terrorism is to attack Pakistan's tribal regions, why couldn't it be done with a more coordinated military "police action" with Special Forces or other controlled military force that would result in significantly less civilian deaths (assuming that we had the necessary resources, which, admittedly, we probably don't)?
Every single day, Islamic terrorists are killing and attacking people ("infidels").
You are wrong here. They are predominantly killing their own kind - Muslims. It is a sick ideology that has nothing "Islamic" about it, except for the jibberish that they speak or print. They do not have safe harbor in any part of the muslim world, except the destroyed country of Afghanistan and an inaccessible part of Pakistan. And when muslim governments do get their hands on them, they usually face a very swift execution - unlike the 20th hijacker here in the united states, who will get cable tv and free health care for the rest of his natural life.
Are "complicit" liberals the #3 target?
No. I disagree with liberals, and that's the extent of it, because that's how civilized people in civilized cultures act. Islamic terrorists target and kill those they disagree with, which is what throwback bums from the seventh century do. Because of this simple fact, I cannot understand why people like you do not want to eliminate these violent throwback terrorists from the face of this earth. I really do not get it.
So complicity with terrorists is forgivable, but having terrorists live in your general vicinity merits a death sentence for every man, woman and child. And the difference has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion. Yeah, right!
If you are complicit with terrorism, I think you are a waste of air. However, I'm assuming that you live in America, and are most likely not allowing Islamic terrorists to train or plot attacks anywhere near where you live. Being complicit from 7000 miles away is a lot different than being complicit 1 mile away. If terrorists were training/plotting attacks near your home, I would expect you to notify the government. If you didn't, you would be aiding and abetting, and therefore an enemy of the state.
You do realize you and Savage are condoning the killing of a million children living in the tribal areas? And that such barbarism would create many more terrorists than the few thousand who live there now?
I'm glad you know how many kids live there -- little brainwashed jihadis in training --is how I might refer to most of them. I do not buy into our attacks creating more terrorists, its nonsense. Islamic terrorism is not a reactionary entity, it is based is extremist interpretations of Islam, which is very easy to interpret the wrong way. The vast majority of muslims, moderate muslims, would cheer the destruction of these radicals who give their religion a tainted name. Also, middle eastern moderate muslims, being a people who have known war and struggle better than anyone in the world, probably have a decent grasp on the reality of collateral damage in an attack that would demolish a large number of the enemy.
Well, I take back what I said below about reasoned, intelligent responses if the best you can come up with is insulting and denigrating children living in a third world country that's been devastated by war for decades.
Craig -
john174541842 IS Savage.
Just last year, in New Jersey, there was a group of young men who had been indoctrinated into a radical interpretation of Islam and were planning an attack on a military base. They were stopped only because a video store clerk called police after they returned a VCR with a suspicious-looking tape still inside. If he hadn't called the police (perhaps because he was intimidated and threatened, as I'm sure happens quite frequently in Pakistan), then, and this is a serious question, would bombing New Jersey be the "civilized" thing to do?
Apples and oranges. The fact remains, the video store clerk did not feel intimidated because the USA is a nation with legitimate law enforcement and a government that has the goal of stopping evildoers. You do touch a very important aspect here though...which is the fact that many of the "innocents" in these remote areas are intimidated, or if they were to report the terrorist activity, Pakistani law enforcement and government does not have a solid track record of arresting/jailing/killing the terrorist criminals. Given this situation, what do we do to eliminate the terrorists? We can bomb the entire area, which would kill them all. We can set up a glorified police state, which will run them out of town (similar to what we have done in Iraq). Or we can continue telling ourselves that Pakistan is a good ally, and will eventually bring these terrorists to justice.
I see the last option as unacceptable, and detrimental to world security in the long run. I see the second option as unsustainable (look at how much we have spent in Iraq -- and they won't even help repay the debt with their oil money). I see the first option as grim and gruesome, but also the quickest and cheapest.
To be honest, I don't know how one would deal with the problem of terrorism. I don't have nearly enough knowledge about the topic or experience in the military or the government to answer those questions. But I can say that I think it would be morally wrong to do what Savage is suggesting, and, from a pragmatic perspective, would probably not "kill them all", as terrorists and believers of these stripes exist in many places around the world. You can't bomb away ideologies, you can't destroy a state of mind.
It's clear we disagree quite a lot, but thank you for your intelligent, reasoned, and sincere response to my question.