See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Source:
Media Matters
URL Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604190001
Published: Apr 19, 2006
Author: Michael Savage
Post Date: 2006-04-19 11:20:51 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 417
Comments: 22
Click Play On April 17, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage called for "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims and referred to the woman who alleged she was raped by members of Duke University's lacrosse team as a "drunken slut stripping whore." On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' " Savage continued: "I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean ... would you rather us die than them?" Savage added: "Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later." Savage also referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as "a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers." He later asked: "What kind of system do we have that anyone can scream rape and not have to show her face?" adding, "This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement." Echoing previous comments he has made about the alleged rape victim, Savage said, "The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core." Savage has also previously referred to the alleged victim as a "dirty, verminous black stripper." From the April 17 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation: SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later. [...] SAVAGE: Now, we got the Durham dirt-bag case. The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core. Here, you have a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers. And what really gets to me, here, is not only the piling on by the vermin in the media -- the spineless eunuchs in the media who are taking the side of an unknown accuser without ever having to ask her one question. What kind of system do we have that anyone can scream rape and not have to show her face, not answer to the public. And, yet, those she accuses are suddenly guilty until they're proven innocent. This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement. 
to listen to this audio clip
Problems? Download this clip here Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Summary: On April 17, Michael Savage called for "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims and referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as a "drunken slut stripping whore."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#9. To: Zipporah (#0)
Most intelligent people are not in favor of attempted genocide. Maybe most wealthy people are, for all I know. The two categories overlap. There are some very vicious unintelligent wealthy people, many of whom acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way—they inherited it. I do agree that, in general, the people on the planet who have the most to lose are the same people who propose the most extreme and "final" solutions. Uneasy lies the head and all that. Unless you're King Dumbaya. His head lies every time its mouth opens. Then there are the so-called "useless eaters" as described by the NWO who can be whipped up into a frenzy against their own self-interest. We saw this in the reaction of a large majority of the U.S. public as they rallied around the Chimperor after 9-11, never suspecting for a moment (half of them still don't) that it was an inside job. I'd say the American public has been fairly vicious and vindictive since 9-11. No other major power had waged aggressive, preemptive war since World War II until we started doing it in the 21st Century. So the Nuremberg precedent lasted a little longer than a half century. But now it's just another "g-ddamned piece of paper" just like the U.S. Constitution. People like Weiner will never be happy in this life. Even if he got his wish of preemptively murdering everyone who disagrees with him, he would soon find new fights to pick with those who remained on the planet and would be advocating a "final solution" for them as well.
Since we now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete hoax, I'd have to say that our invasion of Vietnam was pre-emptive warfare. And didn't we encourage Saddam to go into Kuwait?
You are right. It wasn't quite the same, though. For the first couple of years of American involvement in Vietnam, there was merely an increasing number of "advisers" building up. LBJ did "escalate" after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I think it was 1966 before there were more than half a million servicemen there, though. I could be wrong on the date. I was more interested in my sandbox at that point. The Iraq 2003 adventure was ramped up to full-strength literally overnight and the tanks rolled into Baghdad within two or three weeks. As for Desert Storm, the difference is that there WAS a veneer of international legality to it since Iraq HAD actually violated the UN Charter by rolling into and annexing another member-state of the UN as its "19th province." Remember that Old Man Bush, even if he did lure Saddam into the invasion through what Ambassador April Glaspie was instructed to tell him, spent months getting the UN Security Council to pass a number of resolutions autorizing "all necessary means" to restore Kuwait's sovereignty. Being the New World Order man that he is (he began using the phrase in speeches on the fascinating date of 9-11-1990), he even said he thought the UN resolutions were all the authority he needed and that he didn't need the permission of the U.S. Congress. Like father, like son. Only the son doesn't even need UN authority. He is acting on Gawd's orders.
#16. To: Sam Houston (#14)
lol Thanks for fleshing out the details. I was 20 in 1966, so I was paying plenty of attention, and I believe that you're correct on that date.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestintelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world.
#11. To: Sam Houston. everyone here (#9)
#14. To: lodwick (#11)
Replies to Comment # 14. Only the son doesn't even need UN authority. He is acting on Gawd's orders.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.