Post from Zach Marks:
Terrorists? "Of course, they're all muslim"
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.

Since the Know Your Right Wing Speakers bio on Michael Medved just went up, I thought I’d hop over to Medved’s site to see what the latest from the Mustachioed Madman was. A fresh blog post from Medved was there to greet me and it did not disappoint. He begins:

The latest example of political correctness run amok involves the BBC describing the Islamists who planned bombings in London and Glasgow as arising from “the disfranchised South Asian community.”

Medved goes on to claim the terms “South Asian” and “Indian” are “misleading.” He denounces “[t]he refusal to use the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to identify these terrorists,” and continues: “But of course, they’re all Muslim.”

This isn’t all that shocking coming from Medved, who calls Islam “a primitive religion” and insists there is “a violence problem in the Muslim world because that is an inherent problem in Islam.” What is shocking is that President Bush invited this guy to the White House talk to him about Middle East affairs. Glad the president’s talking to the experts.

The latest from Medved is by no means as ridiculous as Michael Savage’s comments which Cara dutifully reported yesterday, but it just reinforces the need for progressives to reclaim the airwaves from rabid right-wingers.


Reader Comments
  
another thought or two
By Zach Marks Jul 6th 2007 at 4:02 pm EDT
In anticipation of a commenter ridiculing my assertion that conservatives rule the airwaves by pointing to the
"liberal media which is attacking American values and distorting the truth," I'll direct you to a recent report from the Center for American Progress, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," Link

Stay tuned at campusprogress.org for Five Minutes With Mark Green, the president of Air America Radio, who is in the trenches trying to counter Rush Limbaugh and his ilk with more progressive voices
Damnable right-wing radio!
By Calix Jul 6th 2007 at 4:59 pm EDT
Cunning bastards ... they dominate the radio with their copocracy, all the while trying to maintain that the myth of "market demand" is the reason for the slant - a myth that can easily be disproved by the supremecy and dominance of progressive radio such as Air America in all the markets it competes in ... where Air America (and other progressive stations) air they easily and quickly rise to the number one position because they give the country the progressive voice it's longing for ... right?

No?!

Then listeners don't know what's good for them - we must broadcast only progressive radio for the good of the people! All hail Chavez! (Er, ignore that last point ... )
Yeah Right
By Teresa Tollend Jul 6th 2007 at 5:16 pm EDT
"where Air America (and other progressive stations) air they easily and quickly rise to the number one position because they give the country the progressive voice it's longing for ... right?
No?!"

No, is right. This is an incredible urban myth which I believe was started by Air America itself. No doubt they would claim they were just joking. I did some research on this subject for an undergraduate class I was taking. The truth is that in most major markets through all of 2006, Air Americas's listnership was so miniscule that Nielson could not even assign it a rating. That means their percentage of the audience did not even rise to a level of 1% of total listeners. This is about as pathetic of a rating as there could possibly be. Do some research and quit spreading mis-information.
Re: Yeah Right
By jr Jul 6th 2007 at 8:30 pm EDT
Since you completely missed the point the poster you responded to was making and the (SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS YOU'D HAVE TO BE LESS THAN SEMI-LITERATE TO MISS IT) sarcasm in that post, I just have to ask: Where exactly DID you take that undergrad class, and do they know that your reading comprehension abilities are clearly lacking?
Re: Yeah Right
By Teresa Tollend Jul 7th 2007 at 6:43 pm EDT
Ok Ok I'll grant you this one. On rereading it I see he was being sarcastic. It's just that I've heard this myth repeated so many times on left-wing and progressive blogs, I thought he was trying to spread the same lie here. Obviously, he too, was making fun of this widespraed mis-information. Good for him.
Re: another thought or two
By Libertarian Jul 10th 2007 at 11:22 am EDT
Sure, the right wing has AM talk radio, but they sure don't have TV (broadcast or cable), most of the blogs, and print media. I think the left has those areas pretty much under its control.
  
Some are Blond Presbeterians, Aren't They
By Teresa Tollend Jul 6th 2007 at 4:25 pm EDT
He denounces “[t]he refusal to use the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to identify these terrorists,” and continues: “But of course, they’re all Muslim.”


What a bigoted jerk. Everyone knows most of these terrorists are Scandinaian Protestants.
Re: Some are Blond Presbeterians, Aren't They
By JR Jul 6th 2007 at 8:37 pm EDT
And their actions had about as much to do with Islam as the Klan's do with Christianity. There's a reason the KKK is not usually identified as a Christian terrorist organization, despite the fact that they routinely employ Christianity as a justification for their crimes.

Religion is easy to exploit. Smart people, decent people, and people whose heads aren't lodged firmly between their glutes understand this and avoid making blanket characterizations about religions based on the perversions adhered to by various psychopaths and assholes. Terrorists and Mr Medved prefer blanket characterizations based on the perversions of the faith because it suits their ends at the expense of everyone else. Demagogues follow pretty set patterns, and rule #1 is find an "other" and make them look scary. "Terrorists," "Wahabbist fundamentalists," and "violent extremists" are all apparently too specific to allow for a real good demonization, so Medved expands his "fear 'em and hate 'em" demagoguery to include the entire Islamic world. That's what makes him a jackass.
Re: Some are Blond Presbeterians, Aren't They
By Teresa Tollend Jul 7th 2007 at 6:51 pm EDT
Well when I see criticism of extremists for highjacking Islam become more widespread (or even barely visable) in the wider Muslim communiy I'll be more inclined to agree with you. What's your theory on why this criticism is so rare?
Re: Some are Blond Presbeterians, Aren't They
By JR Jul 7th 2007 at 9:51 pm EDT
Um, you read the wrong stuff?

Really, I'm not going to write up an entire lit review for you, but don't think for a second that the literature doesn't exist. It's not widely read here because it doesn't have much of a popular audience here. There was a great piece in Foreign Affairs (in June '05, IIRC) about women in Islamic countries (called "Women in Islam" if I remember right), and this site has quite a bit worth reading: Link

Just out of curiosity, what other than terrorism news do you usually read concerning the "wider Muslim community" (a pretty broad term to use when discussing over a billion adherents to Islam)? My guess is that the question you meant to ask, or at least ought to be asking, is why this criticism is so rarely covered in news outlets you regularly read.
Re: Some are Blond Presbeterians, Aren't They
By Dorna Mohaghegh Jul 8th 2007 at 3:29 am EDT
"What's your theory on why this criticism is so rare?"

It's not rare, the western media just doesn't publicize it and you don't bother to look for it. Perfect example: In 2005, 170 Muslim clerics and scholars from all over the globe representing almost every single sect and school of thought in Islam banded together and issued a joint fatwa condemning ALL acts of terrorism in the name of Islam (for more, read Link. This type of intersectarian cooperation was hitherto unprecedented in the Muslim world but came about in order to defend the true meaning of Islam from those who seek to manipulate it for their own purposes.

Do some more homework before you criticize the Muslim community. In fact, cruise this website put together by students from Colgate University with the help of the American Academy of Religion: Link. I'd especially like to point out the numerous denunciations of acts of terror from Muslim leader worldwide and the vigils held by Muslims everywhere in memory of those killed in 9/11 and other attacks.
  
Progressive=Turd
By zach Jul 8th 2007 at 3:35 pm EDT
This post is getting some feedback over at Michael Medved's townhall.com blog, Link

In the latest response, Roy can't decide whether I'm a "turd," a "cockroach" or a "worm." Read it below:

Zach - You Turd
Dear Mr. Zach -
Great you're a liberal/progressive/cockroach. Whatever you prefer.... South Asian? Indian? Misleading? I would lean on the simple argument that not everyone from Southern Asia or India are of the Muslim faith. The Voodoo Doctors(Oh no I've offended a voodoo Doctor. Get over it) in this case were Muslim, and have a desire to destroy Western Civilization. The Funniest part of this equation is that worms like you are the people that the Muslims want to kill first... Hopefully the patriotic freedom loving Americans will prevent your demise from occurring. Sadly we will still have to listen to your socialist appease the monster dribble, however, freedom is freedom.

Sincerely,
Roy
  
Did I miss something, or aren't they, in fact, all Muslim?
By Anonymous Jul 9th 2007 at 11:51 am EDT
This whole discussion seems to have lost sight of the original point, which overlooks the fact that nearly all terrorists relevant to this discussion can be Muslims without all other Muslims being terrorists. To point out that terrorism is a perversion of their faith is true, but their actions are nonetheless based quite heavily on their uncommon view of faith. The original writer's point was to say that some people are just too unwilling to point out that so many terrorists share this one trait. They do, however, and without it they would not be terrorists. It is not xenophobic to say so.
Addendum
By Anonymous Jul 9th 2007 at 11:55 am EDT
Just to be clear, that comment was meant primarily as a response to Zach's original post, and not as much to the ensuing comments.
Re: Did I miss something, or aren't they, in fact, all Muslim?
By JR Jul 9th 2007 at 5:14 pm EDT
Mostly agreed, though I think the "without it, they would not be terrorists" line is a bit of an oversimplification. Terrorism is employed by all ideologies and stripes, including democrats (Ireland), atheist Marxists (Sri Lanka), and capitalists (Colombia).
Re: Did I miss something, or aren't they, in fact, all Muslim?
By Superduperficial Jul 9th 2007 at 9:40 pm EDT
True point.

However (And TBH the question of "Would Al-Qaeda still be terrorists if they didn't have militant Islam?" hasn't crossed my mind before so this is tentative), I'd say in Al-Qaeda's case it's fair to say that without their warped view of Islam they wouldn't be terrorists, at least not with the aims they currently hold, because their aims are explicitly religious - the re-establishment of the Caliphate. The guys involved might be the personality types where if Wahabbism didn't exist they'd still be up to something else dastardly, but it'd be a whole 'nother beast entirely with different tactics and motivation, not merely Alternate Universe Al Qaeda with a copy of Hitchens' latest in hand.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress