8/22/05 — Michael Graham was fired.
—————————————————————————–
Michael Graham’s instincts were correct. He was suspended for calling Islam a terror organization. As long as the radio station isn’t run by the government, WMAL is within its rights to can him, as weak-willed as it may be.
Read the column that started it all.
Michael and I chatted briefly at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, and I was impressed that he knew who was. He’ll emerge from this wiser, bolder, and richer. Can’t wait for his book. 
I support you 100 percent, Michael.
Contact WMAL and tell them what you think.
(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
Update: A commenter says his e-mail to WMAL bounced back. Use this contact form. The switchboard telephone number is 202-686-3100, programming is 202-895-2327.
Update II (7/30): Michael Graham speaks.
Update III (7/31): Attention new readers and commenters: Please read the comment policy. I blame the fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment on our shoddy government schools.
CRITICIZING ISLAM ON THE AIRWAVES
Michelle Malkin:
Of course they suspended him. However i bet it was leftists inside ABC that had more to do with him being suspended than CAIR’s smear campaign.
There are also details by the counterterrorism blog about how the fatwa declared…
Trackback by HCS's and Gen's Place — 07.29.05 @ 2:03 pm
Michael: Is DA MAN! Disney Corp. by the way was one of the first companies to provide benefits to sexual pervert couples.
Comment by Raymond — 07.29.05 @ 2:04 pm
I wrote the following to the station:
I disagree with your decision to suspend Michael Graham. He spoke an opinion that many people agree with and isn’t inaccurate. For years people on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN have been saying opinions that were offensive and stating facts inaccurately. The people still do this on these stations. There are never consequences for thier offensive opinions and inaccurate statements. The people are still doing this on these stations.
Michael Graham hasn’t said anything inaccurate. This is what people are doing on CBS, NBC, ABC every day. You can’t point to one statement that wasn’t true.
As far as the opinion portion of the piece, Michael Graham’s statement of facts supported his opinion. It may be offensive to people who don’t believe it or want to believe it but what is more than offensive is the suicide bombings and beheadings by Islamofacists and then Islamic clerics refusing to flatly say this is wrong.
It seems that you have aligned yourself with the terrorists.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 2:25 pm
When truth comes by, those who lie give loudest cry.
God Bless Mr. Graham.
Comment by Ranten N. Raven — 07.29.05 @ 2:25 pm
I received an undeliverable message.
They must’ve disabled that email box.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 2:26 pm
Bak,
Same here. Not for the first time I am glad I don’t live in DC. I only hope my local stations have more spine than WMAL
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 07.29.05 @ 2:29 pm
I used their contact form and sent the following:
How cowardly of you to suspend Mr. Graham. Let me ask you folks this. Do you think he was wrong or are you just on the side of that evil, terrorist organization called islam?
Let me ask you another question. Since when is a media outlet who champions the truth acting hypocritical? Maybe when they suspend one of its stars for calling a spade a spade?
I shouldn’t be surprised in your actions since you are owned by Disney. Disney being one of the first companies in the world to provide benefits for homosexual couples.
For once, I would like to see an American company show some spine and backbone in the face of our enemies. You can believe what you want and cow tow to those murderous cult members called muslims and their satanic god, but the fact of the matter is that America is fed up with them. ALL of them. We do not call them all the pretty names you on the left, that’s right I said LEFT, call them. To us REAL American, they are not “islamofascists”, or “extremists” or ” bombers.” They are muslims.
If anything, these discussions clearly demonstrate the anger the world has towards islam. It will take centuries for the muslims to repair the damage done to their already damaged cult.
Americans are fed up. We are tired of feeding the world, changing its diapers, burping it, changing its crappy drawers and spanking it. At some point a man reaches his breaking point and can tolerate no more.
Never in history has one nation given so much and received so little in return for its benevolence only to be repaid with attacks and death.
This nation will not fail. We will prove that this experiment called America works. Mess with us if you want to, but understand that you are signing your own death warrant when you declare war on the USA.
We welcome you to our house, but you must behave. We have a culture which you must adopt. Your culture is not relevant anymore in the general context. If you want to be muslim, Mexican, Peruvian, Russian or Somali, then be that at home, but when you walk out the door of your house in America, you are AMERICAN!
We don’t pick fights, but we love to get in the ring. To the muslims, I say, If you want a jihad, you’d better pack a lunch. We don’t play that crap and you can keep pushing and pushing and pushing and one day you will know the soul of the American.
Do not pick a fight with the Red, White and Blue unless you want a size 3000 boot on your backside.
Shame on you WMAL. Your actions were predictable yet still feminine and cowardly.
Whose side are you on?
USA Forever!
Comment by Raymond — 07.29.05 @ 2:46 pm
My message to the station manager is as follows:
“I strongly object to your conduct with respect (or without respect as the case may be) to Michael Graham. Why don’t you focus on disproving his statements, if it can be done, rather than censoring anyone who doesn’t agree with your politically-correct canned opinions?”
Not the most eloquent political tract ever written, but the thought is there.
Comment by Jimbo — 07.29.05 @ 2:50 pm
Do you actually believe and endorse the statement, “Islam is a terrorist organization”?
You support that 100%???
That’s beyond the pale. And if Graham said that without qualification, then he’s a bigot and an ignoramus, and he richly deserved to be suspended — and fired.
Did you read the man’s column, Scott? If not, please don’t comment on this thread again until you do. - Admin
Comment by Scott Ferguson — 07.29.05 @ 2:54 pm
Scott,
I actually believe islam in a terrorist organization 1000%. In fact I think islam is a deadly evil cult lead by vicious cowardly murderers who worship a malevolent demon who is far more the destroyer than it has ever been a creator.
So what does that make me?
Comment by Raymond — 07.29.05 @ 2:59 pm
Another Day, Another Fatwa, Another Yawn
As Hugh Hewitt continues to insist that those of us who disagree with him are “on the fringe”, I feel compelled to remind Mr. Hewitt that many intelligent minds once believed the earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong. Ooops.
…
Trackback by Lump on a Blog — 07.29.05 @ 3:09 pm
Scott,
Is it their policy to kill the infidel or not?
Have cleric’s flatly rejected the policy of suicide bombing or not?
Do they teach their children hate (everyday) for the non-believer or not?
Have they declared that they will kill 4 million Americans or not?
Are then involved in 100% of the 23 war/conflicts around the world or not?
Is the truth the truth or not?
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 3:40 pm
I used the form to send what I wrote in #3. Thanks for posting the form La Shawn. If I wasn’t at work I’d call the number listed. Hopefully other bloggers are helping create the blogstorm of email and phone calls that I hope for.
The company should be responding to no other emails and phone calls for the next month.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 3:42 pm
Well, he was wrong, and the free market is what is at work here. If his opinion wouldn’t potentially cost the station money, or if his opinion would jeopardize the stations advertising, he probably wouldn’t have been suspended. If his opinion was such a majority opinion, he probably would be suspended.
You can’t argue for free market dictating behavior on one hand, and simultaneously disrespect it when it functions in this fashion. Go Milton Friedman.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.29.05 @ 4:02 pm
Wish that principle worked with Eason Jordan, Dan Rather and a few others I could name….
Unfortunately it only seems to apply to conservatives Dell. And at least the factual statements that helped him form the opinion were actually factual unless you can pinpoint one of the factual statements that was incorrect. The title and thesis (opinion) was backed up by the facts.
With the people I mentioned above it wasn’t only opinion they got wrong but facts.
If I had it my way CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN would be fined $100,000 for every minute during the 5 months (in 1995) that they were reporting that Republicans were going to cut Medicare by $270 billion. And the sources of that information (Democrat party and Mr. Clinton) would be fined for the slander and libel too).
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 4:07 pm
Dell, Then the station should be honest enough to say that they suspended Graham because they were afraid they were going to lose money and not because his comments were somehow insulting. His comments were true and dead on.
Comment by Raymond — 07.29.05 @ 4:10 pm
With your qualifications Dell, can you tell me what Jesus said about telling the truth?
How would this apply to the liars during the 5 months in 1995?
Which statement of fact in Michael Graham’s article was not truthful?
… Just using your arguments against ya. You don’t have to respond.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 4:11 pm
On CNNSI.COM
Ump’s language ban incites protest
Little Leaguers told to stop speaking Spanish on field
ANOTHER Great American stands his ground! I hope this kind of behavior is contagious. Is America rising up? I sure as heck hope so.
Comment by Raymond — 07.29.05 @ 4:16 pm
Thanks for granting me permission. - Admin
Comment by Scott Ferguson — 07.29.05 @ 4:23 pm
While it is within the stations right to suspend or even fire Mr. Graham for his comments, a more discretionary action could have been reached. I have seen many media outlets disaffirm a commentators statements with a disclaiming phrase, ie “the remarks made by Mr. Graham do not necessarily reflect the policies of this station or our sponsors …”. Freedom of speech sometimes means making a statement that is unpopular or offensive to some, but that does not diminish the importance of the message to the speaker or his right to speak. Terrorists and moderate muslims get alot of free press from their activities, why not allow a balanced rebuttal.
Comment by Lyn — 07.29.05 @ 4:36 pm
I disagree with my liberal co-hort Dell Gines. I don’t buy that “free-market” argument just like I didn’t buy the dumb hicks who complained about the Dixie Chicks two years ago or the censoring and firing of other celebrities who come out against Bush. I think the suspension of Michael Graham is totally unwarrented and unethical. Did he say something out of line? Perhaps. I viewed it more as an over-generalization, though. But, fact is, he shouldn’t have been suspended. I don’t care if it’s a private or public network. Censorship is wrong (of course there are a few sundry exception) no matter what group does it.
Comment by Mike M. — 07.29.05 @ 5:09 pm
Mike M.
Censorship is defined as the government censoring what is said, written, broadcast.
Companies do have the freedom to air whatever content they want. To the point they keep Dan Rather on board in spite of the lies and fire conservatives for their point of view backed up by facts.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 5:20 pm
I’m sure Michael Graham knows this, but people are able to bounce back if they’ve been fired from radio. Rush Limbaugh was and one of my favorite radio guys (who’s left wing, actually) was, and he ended up with a job elsewhere. I’m sure there are other people in radio who also have gone through this. Obviously there’s an audience out there who appreciates him.
Comment by mj — 07.29.05 @ 6:30 pm
Thanks for the contact info to WMAL, La Shawn. Here is what I sent to those pc imbeciles.
WMAL management:
So much for the first Amendment rights that you media hypocrites get your shorts in a knot if someone outside your organizations censures or tries to restrict you. One of your own people says something like ‘Islam is a terror organization’ which many of your listeners believe to be true and you suspend him. Talk about double standard. The sad thing is that what Graham said is essentially true. Let me ask you these questions. Do not most (probably all) of the terrorist profess allegiance to Islam? Are there not Islamic imams that preach hate against infidels (all non-Moslems) in mosques everywhere in the world? Are there not other Islamic organizations that collect money to finance terrorists? Are there not Islamic countries e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria that export terrorism to Iraq and throughout the world? Can you honestly answer these questions and not conclude that Islam is directly associated with terrorism?
It is true that one cannot win a war if they do not identify the enemy. You and the rest of media who has a responsibility of helping reveal the enemy by truthful broadcasting are doing the people of this country a disservice by censuring one of your own who is not afraid to tell the truth.
Comment by djb — 07.29.05 @ 6:44 pm
Baklava,
You make this statement: >Censorship is defined as the government censoring what is said, written, broadcast.But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean “nobody.”>As I’ve said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true “religion of peace.” I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. I believe they want peace.>Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you’re killing Jews.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.29.05 @ 9:58 pm
My comment above has been completely distorted. As well, 75% of what I wrote is missing. Kindly disregard the above as it is totally out of context.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.29.05 @ 10:09 pm
There seems to be a pattern of localized conservative radio hosts getting burned for speaking the truth. Many of you may recall what happened to Milwaukee’s Mark Belling last fall. Basically he called illegal aliens who were voting in our elections in this country “wetbacks.” Not a nice word I suppose. But certainly not bad enough to almost lose your job, get suspended for one week, and have every left wing special interest in Wisconsin attempt to destroy you.
While I doubt0 that all Arabas are exactly terrorists, it cannot be denied that all present day terrorists are Moslems. Also, it cannot be denied that there is a very large segment of the Arab world that does nothing but breed contempt for this country and Israel.
Comment by John — 07.29.05 @ 10:56 pm
It needs to be known and understood that all those that name the enemy (Islam!) are being quieted and shut down by the aiders of the enemy -the liberal establishment. They are traitors of all that we and past generations have held so dear. To fight the liberals and the democratic party that enables them is the first step in protecting the future of our country and those we love. If we want to see to it that Islam is stopped, then we must vote for those that would see it crumble. So far only one politician has been willing to name the enemy. Let’s see to it that Tom Tancredo becomes president. It can be done if the American people end their complacency and decide to fight the plague that is Islam.
Comment by Independent — 07.29.05 @ 11:09 pm
If the Republicans refuse to deal in reality, then something new can be created. There are more registered independents than there are people of a party affiliation. I want to see America reclaimed from special interest groups and those that put their own agenda above that policy which strengthens and protects America. Good for Michael and all those willing to identify the enemy. People really are waking up all across our country. Now, how do we get leaders to stand up and really fight?
Comment by Independent — 07.29.05 @ 11:20 pm
ABC did screw up. They should not have suspended Michael Graham without pay. They should have fired him. ABC/WMAL has every right to expect their commentators to have the ability to think, and to think with reason. Mr. Graham has embarrassed himself completely with his puerile writing, his ignorant thought processes and his willingness to share both with the public.
Islam is not an organization. It is the world’s second largest religion. He compares the ‘organization’ of Islam to the Boy Scouts stating >> If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization.> As I’ve said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true “religion of peace.” I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. I believe they want peace.> Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.29.05 @ 11:21 pm
I’ve tried again, but it didn’t work. The above is again out of context and half is missing. Strange that what is posted is not even in the correct placement from the original. Nonetheless, it is obvious I dissent. If anyone wants to read my dissent, it can be found on http://twobabesandabrain.typepad.com/
Comment by Phoenix — 07.29.05 @ 11:26 pm
Well Phoenix, those “good” muslims better start fighting off the “bad” muslims in a bloody civil war. Anything less can only be viewed as consent. Do you actually believe ALL the Germans were nazis? Do you really believe All the Japanese were our enemies? Do you honestly think that All of Stalin’s Russia were actually murderers? Sometimes doing absolutely nothing makes you complicit to the crime. If Islam is not the enemy of the west, then they had better start cleaning house. To not do so, makes all of Islam the enemy by default.
Comment by Independent — 07.29.05 @ 11:36 pm
Independent, indeed!
Comment by Andy — 07.29.05 @ 11:55 pm
Andy, I’m glad you agree. Sometimes I feel like I’m screaming into the wind. I’m glad I started commenting on La Shawn’s blog. I don’t feel quite so alone now. I’m not going to lie to you, I am scared of the future unless we really start to fight. I have three year old twins - a boy and a girl. They are the most precious things in this world to me. They, more than anything else, have woke me up to what is happening. Things have got to change and fast.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 12:19 am
ENCOURAGING MESSAGE FROM MICHAEL GRAHAM
Check out my post at http://www.lumponablog.com/?p=103. Everyone keep up the good work
Best Regards,
Lumpy
Comment by Lumpy — 07.30.05 @ 12:25 am
I’m surprised (and glad) we haven’t seen Islamic extremists start kidnapping and beheading any in the media who speak out, a la Theo Van Gough. How long til that happens? Never, I hope. But one wonders.
Comment by Misty — 07.30.05 @ 1:06 am
LaShawn, I really enjoy your blog. So glad you’re continually gaining fans and influence. Bless you, girl!
Comment by Michele — 07.30.05 @ 1:07 am
Phoenix,
You can’t use less than or greater than symbols unless you are inserting HTML
I read your post and twobabesandabrain and I have to say - there is nothing to respond to. There wasn’t one coherent thought that made sense. Sorry. I think it’s just me and the fact that it’s 12:00 midnight on Friday.
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 3:06 am
oops. Didn’t mean to bold anything except Phoenix.
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 3:07 am
Anyone who adheres to the idea that Islam is the ‘Religion of Peace’ has not read Chapter 9 from the Qu’ran. Chapter 9 of the Qu’ran instructs Muslims to engage in absolute violence, death and mayham if it leads to submission. According to Chapter 9 in the Qu’ran, Islam believes that war is caused by infidels who fail to convert. Submit or Die.
Unless Islam abrogates Chapter 9 in the Qu’ran, this religion will never be peaceful.
Comment by susan — 07.30.05 @ 7:51 am
You can have it both ways if there were to be a “great schism”, a formal divide, within Islam. One side would be the Islam of no change and dedication to subduing or annihilating the infidel and the other could be the “religion of peace.”
I would suggest that the innovative “religion of peace” Muslims do some mosque redesign to set them apart. They should also lose the outfits and maybe adopt a symbol they can wear on a chain around their necks and stick on the backs of their cars to indentify them.
The problem with this idea is that Islam is already a “great schism” from the Old Testament. So, I would guess the “religion of peace” Muslims would have to use the Koran as supplemental reading. That might make these semites a little too much like their fellow semites, the Jews.
“Peaceful” Muslims are sitting on a powder keg. They are in constant peril of a fatwa to “get in line.” Hence the paradox. If a “religion of peace” Muslim really believes in his interpretation of the faith, he is compelled to “gird his loins” against his jihad believing brother and stop him or overwhelm him. Otherwise, the “religion of peace” Muslim must count on others to secure his religion for him.
I would suggest that “others” are far more motivated to fight for themselves and their own survival. But the Muslims do not divide into two camps. The third and probably largest camp is made up of the Muslims who “don’t want to get involved.” They just want to be left alone. Good for them……….but when bodies are being torn apart in the name of their religion, how are they to be separated from the evil group?
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 11:35 am
This is why I don’t think the “don’t want to get involved” are morally innocent within the Muslim community. Let’s say there is a crowded bar with at least one hundered people in it. In a back storage closet two men are raping and murdering a woman. A few more men are standing aroung the closet watching and cheering them on. Those closest to the closet are exchanging nervous looks and saying “maybe you guys should cut that out,” but they really don’t do anything to stop the men in the closet. The people in the bigger barroom can’t see what’s going on though they hear some shouts and there are rumors coming to them that someone is being raped in the back room. They start talking about the terrible state of the world and keep on chugging their beers. They decide they “don’t want to get involved.” Now if you look at this from a purely legal stand point, the two men who actually raped and killed the women will face the major charges. The guys cheering them on will face a lesser charge. However, the ones that knew it was happening but didn’t see it will probably get away within the limits of “reasonable doubt.” However, I contend that everyone in that bar was morally responsible for the crime. That is how I view all of Islam. They have a moral responsibility to get involved. If they do not do so, then they are the enemy of all those that do no wish to lose a loved one in the same cold-blooded manner.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 12:20 pm
J Rob was kind enough to explain why my comments were not working. I am clueless about html, but now realize my left arrows and right arrows destroyed my comments. J Rob went on to respond to my original over at TwoBabes, and while I cannot post my original comment here, I hope I can post my answer to J Rob.
J Rob,
Thank you for taking the time to follow up on my comments at LaShawn’s and to explain why my comments kept messing up. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: In NO way did I allude, even remotely, that LaShawn was altering my comments. She would not do that. I am clueless about the html code business. I appreciate you explaining the left arrow point. I will use quotation marks from now on.
No, I do not believe anyone with an opposing opinion should have some kind of interdict placed against them. My final remarks were in direct reference to Graham’s officious statement that he could find “NOBODY†who could say Islam was a religion of peace. My point - he hasn’t asked EVERYBODY. Naked hyperbole on his part with nothing but the obvious to support that he was speaking with childish hyperbole. He admitted speaking with Britain’s Islamic leaders and from getting his information from a ‘left-wing’ source. That hardly substantiates his claim that NOBODY can say Islam is a religion of peace. He then went on to brag about how he didn’t care about Islam, had never cared about learning about it, and then, to his own embarrassment, the statement about knowing about the ‘new Islam of the past four years’. That is rather shallow for talk for someone who has made such a grand, all-encompassing declaration that ‘Islam is a terrorist organization’. Has he no clue of the validity of ‘Know thy enemy’? From that point, he offers no solutions but rather gripes that all HE wants is to be safe riding the bus. That is where my comment about riding the bus came in to end my diatribe about Graham’s charade of thoughtful journalistic opinion.
I do not know why Muslims withhold their public condemnation of terrorism. I think fear of reprisal may have something to do with it. I also think our media has not gone searching to find those who would condemn it. But when the terrorists are killing their own people, speaking out might be a fool’s game to them. After all, much of what Muslims, themselves, see is blood and guts and no mercy. As Marshall McLuhan states: “The message is the mediumâ€. It may be as simple as fear that Muslims are loathe to speak out; especially when the medium assures them daily that they, themselves are targets for death.
I am no apologist, I can assure you. I am a take-no-prisoners type, and I am waiting for the time when a global fury takes place to end this. Slowly but surely that is happening. It is too bad that hatred of Bush has caused so many countries to ignore his warnings about global terrorism. Now as more countries are experiencing it, things may change, and I am hoping the backlash will be ferocious. If the media reports it correctly, it may open the doors for Muslims to take a stand instead of to cower and to wonder if they have any support from the outside. Maybe Iran will implode. As long as the BBC and Al Jazeera torque the minds of the majority of Muslims, I believe they will remain afraid to speak out. The blame Bush global leit motiv has to end.
To end, let me say that perhaps you could reread the opening paragraph to my original comment. I disparage Graham’s essay because it is ignorant, and I go on paragraph after paragraph proving it. I state that ABC/WMAL has a right to expect intelligent reportage, and for that reason, they have the right to fire someone who does not live up to their standards. I offer no personal opinion in the piece other than to say Mr. Graham should not ride buses and should go hide for a while. His ignorance and arrogance have no doubt inflamed many. It wasn’t hard to pick up that meaning in my conclusion. I suppose I could have ended on a more literate level by saying: “Gee whiz. It is not a good thing to kill 990 Boy Scouts because 10 of the group of 1,000 were bad.†That would have certainly been in keeping with my objectivity about Graham’s stupidity, but it would have been a lie as I do not believe that wiping out 1.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of the few will solve a thing. It does not even come close to rational thinking. Condemnation of the many for the actions of a few is flawed thinking. Mr. Graham should be ashamed, though clearly he hasn’t the mental apparatus for that particular feeling.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 12:52 pm
Phoenix, now it all makes sense. If you really must use “arrows” then you have to type the unicode, ie
“<” without the quotes for < and
“>” without the quotes for >
Indy, I too have 4 small kids and want to see them to grow in the Grace of our Lord and to be all that they can be. I will take any measure within proportional reason, to ensure their right on behalf of country and humankind to be fre of this islamic plague.
However, to paraphrase Golda Meir, I won’t forgive the terrorists for making me kill their kids if push comes to shove.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 1:25 pm
Andy, we are agreed.:)
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 1:46 pm
Tried to send in my opinion via the WMAL input submission form. Guess what? Its suspended out in cyberspace somewhere….guess I’ll just have to let the little hourglass spin a few more hours and see where it goes.
I’ve worked as a web master and I know this little trick…when you really don’t want to hear what folks have to say.
Comment by Chris — 07.30.05 @ 2:18 pm
Here is what Michael Graham wrote:
Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean “nobody.”
———-
I am not usually one to beat a dead horse, But Michael Graham is offering an open invitation to anyone in the universe to step forward and prove that at its core, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Mr. Graham has as much right to ask for that information as any imam has to issue a fatwah against him for asking it.
If someone has the proof that “Islam is a religion of peace” I am certain Mr. Graham would be very open about receiving it and grateful for the information.
Many Muslims who wish this would all just go away may mutter platitudes about “the religion of peace,” but until they formally organize around that concept and divorce themselves openly from the militant statements of the Koran and the imams who teach hate based on the Koran and its interpretive writings they have no basis for their claim of a peaceful religion.
We can wish it any way we want, but logically, our wishing can not make it so.
Short of the proof that Islam is a religion of peace, Mr. Graham is left with two alternatives. 1.) At its core, Islam is a religion of neutrality and inward looking only; or 2.) Islam is a terrorist religion at its core.
Like Mr. Graham, if I have missed another possibility or more, please educate me.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 2:19 pm
Lets’ take a look;
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:
0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
0.817 billion, “The Universal Almanac” (1996)
0.951 billion, “The Cambridge Factfinder” (1993)
1.100 billion, “The World Almanac” (1997)
1.200 billion, “CAIR” (Council on American-Islamic relations)
Estimates for the numbers in America also differ;
2001- 2.8 million- “American Jewish Committee”
2001- 4.1 million -”Britannica book of the Year’
2001- A little over 5 million - ‘Abdul Malik Mujahid”
2001- 5.78 million - “World Almanac”
1995- 6 million - “CAIR”
In 2004 terrorist attacks around the world by Muslim extremists rose from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-5.html
For the sake of simplicity, let’s say each death was caused by a single individual terrorist. If you do the math that comes to (let’s just round it off and say) just about one,one millionth of one per cent of the Muslims in the world that has actually commited a terrorist act.
True, the numbers are growing.
Using the principles of Thomas Malthus, factor in the growth rate of the religion, the growth rate of world population and the ability to feed the masses(with consideration to those countries in Europe that will lose population).
Using U.S.Govenments figues, calculate the terrorist increases and a continual trend. A close estimate shows that by the year 2512, all Muslims will be (or could) committing terrorist acts. Thats roughly an 8th of one percent (.007997) increase every fifty years or so.
Conversely, 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 Catholic priests from 1950 to 2002. “U.S. Roman Catholic Church suffered an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of priests” according to the New York Times. Using the exact same calulation methods, all Catholic priests will victimize children by 2029 (4 percent increase over a period of years). (the calculations are NOT meant to be exact, simply estimates)
Whats my point? It’s wrong to fault an entire religion for the actions of a few. We can only give our due diligence, while striking out against those who perpetrate act of violence against us. Amen
Comment by Hipstreet — 07.30.05 @ 2:47 pm
Hipstreet, are you equating child molestation (while unimaginably horrible) to mass murder? Just asking. By the way, that whole priest pedophile business has got alot of press and overwhelming condemnation in both the religious and legal community. On the other hand, it appears that the Islamic community doesn’t have a real problem with that mass murder business. According to most, the west brought this on ourselves. Now when the Christian community and the west in general start saying that the young boys just brought it on themselves, then you might have an argument.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 3:23 pm
This is what I sent these mokes:
This looks like a simple economic problem. CAIR wants you to fire Michael. You’re afraid that your sponsors will pull the plug if you don’t kowtow to them. Give this message to your sponsors:
If you suspend/fire this man, I, among many, many more will start a personal crusade to boycott ALL of your sponsors and will contact your sponsor’s marketing departments and tell them exactly why we are doing what we are doing.
Listening to the majority this time could make or break your station/CBS.
Your choice.
Comment by Chris — 07.30.05 @ 3:35 pm
Thank you Independent.
Some people’s children huh.
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 4:04 pm
Phoenix,
You go on with a lot of hyperbole yourself. I’m not trying to be flippant or aggravating here. Let me just simply say that you try to tear Michael’s points to shreds but fail.
It is perfectly legitimate to say, “Hey, I’m not an expert here but here is my viewpoint from what I’ve seen in the last 4 years.”
Muslims should learn from that viewpoint because what Michael writes is what MANY of us see. Many of us weren’t experts. We witnessed 9/11. We woke up to the fact that Islamofacists have issues and we’ve been trying to grapple with the facts. We see muslims on TV when being interviewed UNABLE to FLATLY without buts reject the tactics of suicide bombings and the like.
It is perfectly legitimate for someone to write from the perspective of being awaken to the facts of a certain population. It would be like a husband writing from his perspective that he didn’t know what an alchoholic was like until 4 years ago until his wife became one. Ever since then he has awoken to that issue and witnessed 10 other alchoholics break apart families and when he has asked their perspective this is what they had to say. “…”. Nobody has to ask EVERYBODY in order to write about something. He set up his limit of knowledge. He wrote about the clerics and their inability to flatly reject suicide bombings and he wants to see what a good percentage of conservatives want to see…. a good percentage of Muslims calling for the terrorists to stop and FLATLY informing them their tactics make them non-muslims. Excommunication was just a word. He knows that isn’t what applies to Islam. It’s the process that many of us are looking for. We want a rejection of terrorists from Islam.
They should look at our point of view and learn from it. To erase the point of view by suspending Michael is the exact wrong thing to do. It makes Muslims feel that they are “righteous” in their behavior.
Phonenix, When you wrote, “I do not know why Muslims withhold their public condemnation of terrorism.” it shows that you have some sense of what many of us are saying including Michael.
You also wrote, “I am waiting for the time when a global fury takes place to end this.”, and I think it would be much more responsible for muslims to learn from Michael’s column about MANY American’s perspective rather than reach that point of global fury.
You also wrote, “and I am hoping the backlash will be ferocious.”, and I think that’s what many of us conservatives were hoping to see from the “peace loving muslims” themselves. We’d rather see Muslims weed out thier own than have to battle the 10% (estimated by some) that are interested in following the Koran literally.
I find it very hard to respond to what you are saying because you are ALL over the place. And then you write in closing, “I disparage Graham’s essay because it is ignorant,” yet you failed to point out one part of his article that was untruthful. He formed an opinion based on legitimate facts and you simply seem to DISAGREE with him. That doesn’t make the person you disagree with ignormant.
You then go on to ignorantly state, “as I do not believe that wiping out 1.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of the few will solve a thing.”. My question to you is who asked for that? Point to the sentence in Michael’s article that says that’s what he’s advocating. I say ignorant because you did exactly what I think would be an indication. Distort the facts. You implied a statement of fact that simply hasn’t been present.
You write close to the end, “Condemnation of the many for the actions of a few is flawed thinking.”, and I point out a few of your statements in this response that are similar to Michael’s. All we want is to see Muslims FLATLY reject terrorists in their midst.
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 4:27 pm
Independent,
True, many (including the Pope) has condemned pedophile priests. Contrary to your statement, “the Islamic community doesn’t have a real problem with that mass murder business” many Islamic groups and officials have condemned the terrorist and their tactics. (see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php for a listing off these groups and individuals)
Furthermore, I am not equating the “overt” act of killing innocent civilians (barbaric), to the “covert” act of the pedophile priests (repugnant). I am simply showing a contrasting view of the two evils in a propitious attempt to quell the possiblility of the ever-rising hypocrisy and the unjust castigation of an entire religion. (either Catholic or Muslim)
You’re absolutely correct in the assertion that a huge population around the world holds’ steadfast to the belief that the West brought it upon themselves. Even though many of them don’t have the right to their own [and/or certain] opinions, as Americans we can extend them the right. (Just one small offering to help spead Democracy, pursuant to The Bush Doctrine)
By the way, how could anyone phantom the idea that “young boys just brought it on themselves.”
(I would hope you were merely being facetious)
Smile!
Comment by Hipstreet — 07.30.05 @ 4:44 pm
There is no parallel between pedophilia and militant Islam. Pedophilia has plagued both the Christian world and the world of Islam.
It is heterodoxy in the Christian world, but has some basis in the scripture of the Koran.
Militant Islam is firmly grounded in the orthodoxy that is specific in the Koran.
Catholic bashing has a long history and pedophilia charges against the priests is not a pretty picture for anyone. But the priests have acted out of lust, not orthodoxy.
Stoning women, killing women who have been raped, blowing up infidels is firmly rooted in the history and nature of Islam. It stems directly from the Koran. Sharia law stems directly from the Koran. They are not heterodox.
As to the mathmatic exercise of extrapolating numbers and creating exponential permutations from the extrapolated precedents……….well that calculus can go on for ever. Any smart number cruncher can come up with whatever outcome you desire. Ask Ken Lay.
The issue here is basic and begs a clear answer. There are volumes written about the destructive history of Islam and the roots for violence in the Koran. There is are strong threads to this in the present world and they are readily traced.
If there are volumes that show the productive, progressive and peaceful nature of Islam, then bring them forward. If there are volumes that show that the Koran clearly does not create an orthodoxy for violence, then bring them forward. It there are strong threads running through the present world of Islam to assure that it is a “religion of peace,” then put it before us so that we can support it with all our might.
Here is just one example of where the “divide” in Islam stands:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900478_pf.html
We have no time to waste waiting for the civil war between the “religion of peace” Muslims and the terrorist Muslims to break out and be settled.
This country dilly-dallied around with the politics of slavery for better than 100 years until it was finally settled by civil war. And we all know that the fall-out from that war has not fully subsided yet.
Islamic terrorism is not going to be defeated in debating societies with a Chamberlain umbrella as the main weapon.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 5:54 pm
If I were to call Christianity a terrorist organization and started citing specific references to support it and got loud enough about it Me thinks I’d be more than suspended….I don’t understand how anyone can denigrate anyone’s religion like that and have so many people applaud him. I guess I just haven’t yet developed a firm enough grasp of the full power of propoganda and the willingness of the sheep to follow it. Even when it goes against every thing the Good Shepherd actually stood for and wished for from his flock.
Comment by mak — 07.30.05 @ 7:02 pm
Hipstreet said, “You’re absolutely correct in the assertion that a huge population around the world holds’ steadfast to the belief that the West brought it upon themselves. Even though many of them don’t have the right to their own [and/or certain] opinions, as Americans we can extend them the right. (Just one small offering to help spead Democracy, pursuant to The Bush Doctrine)”
I support the war in Iraq and believe that the “Bush Doctrine” has promise in the long term. However, I don’t believe Islam as it is practiced now and democracy can coexist. I hope that democracy itself will help reform Islam, but in the mean time we have a very real threat.
You also said, “By the way, how could anyone phantom the idea that “young boys just brought it on themselves.â€
(I would hope you were merely being facetious)”
Of course I was, but that is just the point. It is inconceivable to the western mind that the victim is responsible for the crimes of the perpetrator. However, the innocent are routinely forced to pay with their lives for the sins committed against them under Islamic law. There is simply no basis for comparison in present day western and Islamic society.
Heliotrope made the strongest point, “We have no time to waste waiting for the civil war between the “religion of peace†Muslims and the terrorist Muslims to break out and be settled.”
We simply can’t wait decades or centuries for Islam to work things out. The technology has changed and the threat is too great. Right this second, a terrorist leader may be purchasing a WMD. The WMDs might already be here. They have the money and there are certainly those willing to sell to the highest bidder. I’ve noticed our government rhetoric is changing. We have gone from “The Global War on Terror” to “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.” That viloent extremism is pretty much exclusively Islamic. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the government is making a veiled statement that Islam is the enemy. They are still trying to make a distinction between the “good” muslim and the “bad” muslim. The west is not doing the Islamic world any favors by holding onto these distinctions. We need to make it crystal clear that the west is challenging the Islamic world to choose their fate. A wake up call is inorder. However, if a WMD is used on our country such distinctions are going to cease to be a matter of controversy. In the event of the worst I see the following happening:
1. We ban the practice of Islam.
2. All Muslims that are not citizens are exported to their country of origin, imprisoned for information, or killed by angry mobs.
3. All Mosques are closed or burmed to the ground.
4. Muslim citizens are restricted in travel and must notify authorities of their movement or placed in a temporary camp. I fear many of them would fall to the angry mobs as well.
5. The border is completely shut with limited access.
6. ME governments that sponser and fund terrorism will be bombed back into the seventh century (there era of choice).
7. Islamic holy sites become fair targets.
Many of those things (the nonviolent suggestions) could be enacted now to prevent the worst, but I fear it will take the worst to see them happen. So it would seem the fate of the Islamic world rests in the hands of the “moderates.” The left makes the argument that the terrorists are a small number of the muslim world. Then the rest of the “peaceful” folks better start a rebellion and end the tyranny of the few. If they don’t do this then they will have to share a collective fate.
The Islamic world has a lot of power right now. They can choose to usher in WWIII or they can openly fight the most extreme elements of Islam. The ball is in their court.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 7:24 pm
The MSM often goes out of its way to attack Christians, labeling them as “right-wing Bible-thumping fundamentalists”. Christians are routinely demonized on TV sitcoms and drama shows. Peaceful pro-life demonstrators are slimed as “extremists”, “hard-liners” and even “terrorists”. Criticism of stem-cell research is dismissed with a hoot of “theocracy”.
Lest we forget - the MSM is the self-styled voice of “tolerance” and “diversity”. Ironic, is it not?
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.30.05 @ 7:52 pm
Mak, it is very simple. There is no evidence to support Christianity as a terrorist orgainization. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were not Christians by there own admission. Even if they had been, they were openly condemned, and imprisioned/executed by a Christian majority. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that Islam is a terrorist orgainization. You have those that carry out acts of terrorism and those that enable them to do so. I don’t see your argument. Michael Graham just spoke the truth, but many are just too indoctrinated in their own PC rhetoric to hear it.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 7:56 pm
Heliotrope:
Michael Graham is not offering an open invitation to anyone in the universe to step forward and prove Islam is a religion of peace by his statement: “But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean NOBODY.†It is a direct declaration of his opinion used to support his wayward claim that “Islam is an organization of terrorism.†Mr. Graham is left with more than the two very narrow alternatives you offer. He had a third: Keep his mouth shut. Keep his job.
I have no issue with anything else you said other than to restate that I think fear and confusion are keeping the many sane Muslims from formally organizing around the concept of peacefulness and from divorcing themselves openly from the militancy of the Koran. I think the majority of Muslims are as horrified by this terrorism an anyone but just don’t know what to do about it without risking their own lives.
Mr. Graham made a bold, unsupported statement that Islam is an organization of terrorism. It is that statement to which I have reacted. I found fault with his arguments/defense in that he twice switched horses in mid-stream and called Islam a ‘religion’ and made advocates out of the majority of Muslims who are good. He is all over the place in his essay. If he is going to state unequivocably that Islam is a terrorist organization, stay with that premise and don’t waffle.
Finally, a study of Malthusian Theory would be worth your while. It is far from just number-crunching.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 8:11 pm
Independent:
#32 Hunh? Thank you for making my point in the first part of your paragraph. Too bad you blew it by making that last ridiculous statement.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 8:19 pm
Hipstreet writes: “For the sake of simplicity, let’s say each death was caused by a single individual terrorist. If you do the math that comes to (let’s just round it off and say) just about one,one millionth of one per cent of the Muslims in the world that has actually commited a terrorist act.”
I have a problem with your math. In fact, the “de-”magnitude fairly jumped out at me — like a 2×4 coming at me right between the eyes.
First off, what is your number for the victims of islamic terrorism? 20? 10,000? 50,000?
–What of those who died as a result of intentionally killing the unbelievers in gureilla/terrorist attacks (ie Western Civ, Phillipines, India, China)? 200 thousand?
–What of state sponsored genocide via war, famine, slave trade in the name of islam (ie Kosovo, Sudan, Indonesia)? 3 million?
–What of sharia against apostates (ie Tunisia, Morroco, Saudi, Egypt, Algeria)? 100 thousand?
–What of infidels put to death by sharia (ie Nigeria, Niger)?
Let’s say I grant you that only 200 thousand have had a hand in wielding allah’s sword or are “accesories” to the murders: 200k bloody jihadii/ 1.5 bil muslims is 0.013%, or as you would frame it, just over one,one hundreth of 1 percent.
However, your claim of 1/millionth of 1% translates to 0.000001% (that’s five “0″s in front of the “1″). To arrive at your claim, with a base of 1.5 billion muslims means you’re guessing around 20, as in TWENTY islamists have bloody hands, for which I can only presume you’re talking about the daily rate, which I think is rather low, even for Iraq alone.
Given the context of say since 1950, we can confidently estimate well over 5 million victims of islam.
Just because the average American is unaware of the extent, does not mean it hasn’t happened, much less that anyone was keeping count. Take the struggle of Algeria for independence from France in the 50s. Without going into all the details, the islamists were uncommonly bloody, simply because it wasn’t a simple matter of sovernity, it was a matter of islamic dominance over all else.
“Conversely, 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 Catholic priests from 1950 to 2002.
Now you’re comparing apples to corn, not that there was any relationship whatsoever between bewteen your terror vs pedo calculations.
For instance, to even get to the scale of apples to oranges, what is the total number of all RC clergy in the US? That’s the ratio you should have at least tried to go for.
Better yet, because islam has no heirarchy, you should have used the total number of RC members to compare them apples to your terror apples. Now that ratio looks exceedily slim, about par actually (10 thousand boys, 70 million RC = 0.014%).
Even so, that’s not really accurate due to growth factors, but I think you get the general point: I’m hip to your numbers game.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 8:21 pm
Mak, the Good Sheperd was all about calling a spade a spade and killing the wolves to protect the flock. Crack open your Bible for once before you “crack” your keyboard.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 8:32 pm
Phoenix,
I do not wish to make this personal in any manner. I am very familiar with Malthisian theory as I taught the problems inherent in Cartesian logic within the general realm of mathmatic logic and general semantic logic for many years. That aside, I would invite you to reexamine Mr. Graham’s statement, in context, once again.
Mr. Graham frames his premise by stating that he accepted President Bush’s description of Islam as a “religion of peace.”
Four years later, Mr. Graham says that “nobody” can defend the statement that “Islam is a religion of peace.” He repeats that “nobody” can do so.
Now that is “crossing the Rubicon” or “throwing down the gauntlet” or whatever you might call it. It is a clear, unadulterated challenge.
My challenge to you is: Show Mr. Graham why he is wrong. Prove that Islam is a religion of peace.
Now to do so, you must speak convincingly to the substantial evidence in history, tradition and the Koran itself that it is not.
This really is fundamental rhetoric: there is no wiggle room here.
You may ask Mr. Graham how he reached his conclusion. But understand that when he said “nobody” he left the door wide open for you to stride right in and stuff your proof to the contrary right down his throat. Take him up on it.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 8:32 pm
Baklava:
Show me my hyperbole and I will be happy to address it.
“Nobody has to ask EVERYBODY in order to write about something.†Then don’t make grand statements that NOBODY can say Islam is a religion of peace. That is hyperbole and flawed reasoning.
He made a big deal out of excommunication. It was not just a word he tossed in his essay. He used it as proof that Islam was a terrorist organization.
“They should look at our point of view and learn from it.†Is there any chance you think the Islamic world might NOT know our viewpoint of terrorism?
My statement about a ‘ferocious backlash’ incorporates Muslims as well as any sane government/people/country on this planet. However, most Muslims are not armed, are oppressed by totalitarian governments, and their chances of internal rebellion are slim in comparison to the well-armed terrorists who have no problem killing their own. This does not make them complicit in the terrorism.
I am not ‘ALL over the place’ in my responses. I went line-by-line and addressed his statements in that manner. His essay is ignorant. I point out in my opening statement, for which I offer support all the way through, that his statement that Islam is a terrorist organization is wrong. That statement is ‘untruthful’ if you’d rather I said that. His facts are nowhere near legitimate. Generalization, ludicrous comparisons, and flawed thinking do not make ‘legitmate facts’. That is what makes him and his piece of work ignorant - to say nothing of arrogant. And YES, I DISAGREE with him.
My statement: “as I do not believe that wiping out l.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of a few will solve a thing.†is a response to J Rob. I was defending my entire point, not quoting from Mr. Graham’s article. I did not distort any facts. That was my opinion.
My statement that, “Condemnation of the many for the actions of the few is flawed thinking.â€, is in no conceivable manner similar to Mr. Graham’s statements. It is the opposite, in fact. Mr. Graham declares that Islam is an organization of terror. Note that my statement is directly opposite that viewpoint.
I wonder how many of our soldiers will die as a result of this fool’s moronic assertions?
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 8:50 pm
Phoenix, What was ridiculous about my last statement. If the Islamic world doesn’t make it known through FORCE that they do not support the terrorist’s actions, then they are showing consent. Verbal condemnation is not enough, they are going to have to fight. Now, if they don’t take up physical rebellion against current Islamic leaders and WMDs are used on our soil, then we will be forced to view all of the Islamic world as complicit to the crime. The PEOPLE will insist upon it - of that I am quite certain. I do believe that the American people would view a WMD attack as the starting point for WWIII. Sides would be drawn around the world and Islam would have all hell to pay, be it through military might, economic and trade sanctions, or loss of international civil liberties. The most offending regimes would suffer the most, but all of the Islamic world would be affected. I don’t see how there can be a question that the Islamic people themselves hold the power of their fate. Explain, what am I not understanding?
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 8:58 pm
Oh I see Phoenix, we must have been writing at the same time.
You wrote, “However, most Muslims are not armed, are oppressed by totalitarian governments, and their chances of internal rebellion are slim in comparison to the well-armed terrorists who have no problem killing their own. This does not make them complicit in the terrorism.”
You see, this is where we differ dramatically on this issue. You can’t have it both way. You can’t say one minute that the evil practitioners of Islam are so few as to not be representative of Islam and then turn around and say the Islamic people are so overwhelmed by the evil as to have no power. Throughout history, people have had to rise up in revolution to fight off opressive regimes. According to your argument, the whole of Islam should be able to win against the extremists based on sheer numbers. Are you saying that the Islamic population is more cowardly then other groups of people? Because the numbers that you and others site just don’t paint a picture of helplessness. You say they are basically unarmed. Well what has prevented the muslims of noble intent from infiltrating the armies under fasle pretenses to stage a coup? Others have done it throughout history. What makes these swarms of “peaceful” people so very helpless? Could it be that they like things just the way they are?
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 9:16 pm
Heliotrope:
Thank you for your response. I see we come from different disciplines. I taught writing and am thus sensitive to the semantics and syntax of persuasive, creative, expository and journalistic expose. That may explain why I take such exception to Mr. Graham’s attempt to persuade those foolish enough to follow his line of gerrymandering. Mr. Graham gave little thought to his piece, and it is that which confounds me as he makes horrific claims which he cannot and does not bother to support.
If Mr. Graham had not befouled his entire essay with generalizations and idiotic comparisons, and absolutely no proof to substantiate his claims, and had not switched his premise twice in the essay, I might believe that he had the intellect to issue the ‘challenge’ you speak of when you say, “It is a clear, undadulterated challenge.†in reference to ‘NOBODY’ can defend the description that Islam is a religion of peace.
Therefore, I have no intention of jamming anything down his throat. The man is too stupid for me to waste my time trying to increase his intellect. He made the statements he made. He lost his job because of those statements, and it behooves HIM to defend himself.
As for me speaking convincingly to the substantial evidence in history, tradition and the Koran that it is a religion of peace, I will refrain. To do so, I would have to bring in Christianity and its parallels with Islam, and I have no desire to open that can of worms.
Suffice to say, I object strongly to Mr. Graham’s assertions, as well as to his egregiously flawed attempts to make those assertions. It is that simple. Not only do I disagree that Islam is an organization of terrorism, but I find Mr. Graham’s public portrayal of his ignorance astounding.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 9:34 pm
#66 Independent
“According to your argument, the whole of Islam should be able to win against the extremists based on sheer numbers……….
……………………………………………………………………… What makes these swarms of “peaceful†people so very helpless?”
Well, now THERE if the nub of the question! Well done!
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 9:42 pm
I don’t claim to be a scholar of the Koran or the Bible. Frankly, I have never taken the liberty to study either. Yet sentient to the teachings of both religions, (to a degree that is quite more than obtained colloquially)I truly believe many have miscontrued the context of both faiths.
(Also lets not forget the Papal sanctioned Crusades of the 11th through 13th centuries)
Since 9/11 it seems that a growing number of Americans are being drawn into the same opiate like euphoric state that the Muslim extremist are in. (Perhaps thats their mission) If Islam is truly the enemy, who are the people we’re training and spending billions of dollars on in Iraq? Has the installed Government officials of Iraq and Afghanistan given up their faith?
By the way Heliotrope, thats better than 300 years; and slavery was ONE issue surrounding the Civil War not THE issue. Even though powerless in the decision making process, I don’t think the slaves themselves “dilly-dallied” with the practicality of slavery.
On a different note; You said “the fall-out from that war [Civil War] has not fully subsided yet.” I could be misinterpreting this statement as it seems to imply that the descendents of slaves are still somehow burdened by the past. Sounds like the basis for affirmative action, reparations or some kind of compensation don’t you think?
Comment by Hipstreet — 07.30.05 @ 9:48 pm
# 69 hipstreet
Thanks for the thoughful reply. May I deal from the bottom up? The “fall out of the civil war” is complicated. The 13th amendment ended slavery. The 14th amendment came along because men of ill will were saying that freed slaves were not citizens, just freed slaves. The 15th amendment came along and got rid of the grandfather clause that wiley old statemen came up with. This was followed by segregation, Plessy v. and finally, in 1953-4, Brown v. which shot a big hole in de jure segregation. It was the civil rights act of 1957 under Eisenhower that finally took aim at de facto segregation. After Kennedy’s assassination, LBJ went after de facto segregation with a big club. This broke down the walls of housing segregation and accomodation segregation by applying applicable interstate commerce laws to the problem.
No, the fall out of all of this does not lead naturally to affirmative action. Affirmative action is clearly in conflict with the due process clause of the 14th amendment and has been slowly but surely tested in the courts ever since. One of the great problems with affirmative action is curiously simple. You might like to research the genetic markers for race. There is no definitive set of markers that apply to the old classification of “Negroid.” Therefore, the only hope for the concept of affirmative action or reparations is to show a direct line back to those who were victimized by overt government policy.
I could say more, but you get the point.
My reference to 100 years of slavery is not coupled with St. Augustine, Florida in 1548 or Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. It has to do with the foundation period of the United States that began in the 1760’s when Washington was sent into Western Pennsylvania to distinguish the frontier of the colonies from French and Indian mischief.
Jefferson wanted to blame King George III for slavery in his list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence, but he was talked out of it by interests who feared it called their practice of indentured servitude might be into question. The constitution did call for the abolition of the importation of slaves by 1807 and as soon as that date rolled around slave importation was abolished. From 1807 until 1861 there is a rich history of political back and forth about slavery. During this time, the northern factories were careful not to jeapordize their right to use child labor, orphans and indentured servants. There really were very few “clean hands” in this period except for the rare, few abolitionists. I recommend to you a book of the period entitled “Cannibals All” by George Fitzhugh who was the rare, published abolitionist. I also recommend that you take a look at Cassius Marcellus Clay. No, not Ali the boxer, but Lincoln’s ambassador to Russia.
I can not help you with your understanding of the Koran as it is a complicated study. But I do suggest this. Christians load their quivers with Bible verses. Islamists load their quivers with quotes from the Koran. Take a look at the arrows on each side. Christians are like Eros, shooting love arrows. Islamists fire death arrows. There are many sites on the net that will take you to information for each. This is not really a fight between zealots. It is a fight for survival.
There is an ancient Greek saying that says: “The boys throw stones at the frogs in sport, but the frogs die in earnest.” Those of us who warn of deadly Islam are not warning in sport, we are in deadly earnest. These guys are not your garden party macho types. They are deadly dangerous and they believe their god is fully behind them.
I hope this helps. I do not wish to demean you or to appear superior to you. If I am not clear, give me the opportunity to clarify.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 10:34 pm
Hipstreet wrote, “If Islam is truly the enemy, who are the people we’re training and spending billions of dollars on in Iraq? Has the installed Government officials of Iraq and Afghanistan given up their faith?”
That’s a really good question and one I think many supporters of the Iraq war have been grappling with lately. I know that like Michael Graham and President Bush, I too considered Islam a basically peacful religion at the mercy of a troubled region. However, I think we have all been educating ourselves and have come to some frightening conclusions. I think Iraq could be a cornerstone for Islamic change if we stay the course and our presence gives them the will to fight for democracy and Islamic moderation. However, if we cut and run, Iraq will be a slaughter house. No, the newly elected officials have not given up their religion. Although, weather or not the democracy experiment is a factor in creating an Islamic reformation in Iraq is still to be seen. That Islam (as it is being practiced by ME leaders) is a terrorist organization is beyond question to me. The Islamic laws ,as interpreted from the Koran, are used to terrorize the weak (women and religious minorities) into submission. Those same Islamic laws are used to terrorize the rest of the international world. How can Islam as presently practiced not be a terror organization?
On a side note, I interpreted Heliotrope’s remark, “And we all know that the fall-out from that war (U.S. Civil War) has not fully subsided yet” to mean that we are still feeling the effects of the shift of power from local/state government to the federal level. I also thought he might have meant that liberal policy makers have been able to use the slavery issue of the past to create a victimology mentality to hold minorities back, instead of allowing them to progress naturally. Of course, he would have to answer that for himself. I based my assumptions on my own opinions.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 10:37 pm
Hipstreet, Heliotrope’s eloquent and precise answer makes me wish I had kept my fingers off the keyboard. Heliotrope, you do have a way with words. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning in any way.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 10:42 pm
#72 Independent
I would not quibble with how you interpreted my remarks. We each read, see and hear through a filter of our experience. I only start to hop around when people read, see and hear what they have already decided what they want to read, see and hear!!!!
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.05 @ 10:48 pm
Independent:
Yes, you are correct that throughout history governments have fallen by internal rebellion. Governments and civilizations fail for different reasons: Implosion from within when the leadership does not provide for the people’s needs, invasion from external forces, giving the citizens too much that they become complacent, or from spreading one’s civilization too broadly to control. Philosophically speaking, government could be defined as the effective leadership of a society that acts as the parent to a national family, performing many of the same functions. This leadership may range from excellent to poor throughout the world, but all have one thing in common - they act with authority to control behavior. We are born as arbitrarily to a government as we are born to a parent, neither of us choosing the other. Allegiance develops through familiarity, not through objective evaluation. Ultimately, the goal of the government is to take care of the citizenry; the goal of the citizenry is not to need care.
Hierarchical and totalitarian governments such as those which govern Islamic states include all the factors I listed above with the most influential for failure the widespread dominion of the Islamic world. Someone earlier on this thread listed Germany, Japan, and some other small countries - I’ll add Poland and asked if I thought ALL of the citizenry were complicit in crimes committed by their governments. My answer is of course not. But in each of the countries mentioned, there were heroic underground movements that tried to overthrow dictatorships. How would it be possible for the wide-ranging Islamic countries to collectively engage in one huge underground movement to overthrow those leaders who promulate terrorism? We are not talking about a small country rising up in arms; we are talking about a global community of varying Muslim nations. It would be nice if Iran could start the ball rolling and then to have the ‘movement’ spread around the world, but I don’t see that happening. If it could be a peaceful rebellion, that would be fine, but where do approximately a billion people get weaponry to overthrow those who are adept at killing and who have seemingly unlimited finances to carry on their terrorism.
I never said the sheer numbers of Muslims should be able to win against the extremists. As well, I do not think for a minute they are a cowardly people. If, as you suggest, some large group could infiltrate the terrorist camp and be successful, I firmly believe the whole of the Muslim community would rally to fight the terrorists. They just need the leadership, the belief they have the power to succeed, and the assurance that the west will support them in their endeavor to fight the extremist faction of their religion. If ‘swarms of peaceful people’ like things just the way they are, it is because their governments have not provided for them in knowledge and modernity. Their governments, through repressive religious ideology, have suppressed, oppressed, and repressed these people. That is their governments’ manner of control. The BBC, Al Jazeera, idiotic statements by our own people, and now this Graham article does nothing to enlighten the oppressed into thinking there could possibly be a better world than the one they are living in. Knowledge is power. The problem is how to get the knowledge to the people who are too afraid to speak out.
As for Muslim leaders, I agree completely that it is they who must decry the activities of the terrorists. Could it be they like things just the way they are?
Comment by Phoenix — 07.30.05 @ 11:11 pm
Calm down Andy, my “Bad”, Hey, I miscalcualted the zero’s so I’m no mathematician. My point is the number of radical Islamic extremist is minuscule by comparison.
Don’t forget we’re talking about radical Islamist terrorist acts, the deadliest of which being the attacks of 9/11.
The U.S. State Department estimate for 1980 to 1998 is approx. 11,000 deaths directly related to Islamic terrorist. (my only available stats.)
Add in the fatalities from the U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya,in mid 1998 (about 220) and, in 2000 the bombing of the USS Cole (not sure of the number, but around 15 or so )the 2002 Passover and Matza restaurant massacre’s in Israel, Moscow theater, Istanbul, September 11th… (you get my drift) it brings the number to some where in the neighborhood of 17 to 18 thousand.
You can still do the math.
Comment by Hipstreet — 07.30.05 @ 11:28 pm
Phoenix, your arguments are frustrating, but I sense they come from a place of decency and goodness. The Islamic people have had centuries to affect change within their government structures. For whatever reason, they have not done so. At the present, the Islamic leaders that have managed to maintain control (despite the overall “peacefulness” of the religion), have declared war on all those that don’t go along with their agenda. I support the Iraq war and hope and pray that the overall result is a positive change for Islamic people on a whole. In the meantime, those of us that live day to day wondering what is going to happen next, have a right to say that Islam itself is dangerous to our way of life. We have a right to expect more than emply platitudes when our people are dieing at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. This sense of complacency on the part of the Islamic community is not just from the “opressed” of these fanatical regimes. Western Islamic leaders have been anything but enthusiastic in their condemnation of terrorist acts. There is always an equivication or a but at the end of most of their statments. Civilizations are preserved based on self-interest. Islamic interests and western interests are at odds. If I ever am forced to choose between these two civilizations, I am without doubt going to choose my own. I am lately coming to believe just such a choice may have to be made. That Michael Graham stated such an opinion, well such is his right. That he was suspended from a private industry, well such is the owner’s right. However, don’t get all shocked and bothered that the man is supported by a great number of Americans. Dissent is a two way street, and right now I think your way of thinking just might get a terrifying number of Americans killed.
Comment by Independent — 07.30.05 @ 11:53 pm
Independent:
I’ll keep this short so as to avoid frustration. I find little to argue with in your latest missive. You have qualified much of what you state, and that makes your statements reasonable and well thought out. Unlike Michael Graham’s.
I’m not shocked and bothered that a great number of Americans support Michael Graham. I’m not shocked and bothered that our country is pretty much divided on all issues. It is the way it is. Just watched news hour on Fox - weekend edition, and the commentators were all in agreement that Graham was full of little red ants. (Those are my words.
(I’m tired.)
Since I’m forced to wander away from my original contention that Graham is an idiot and to address your contention that my way of thinking just might get a terrifying number of Americans killed - allow me to dissent. Graham’s statements are much more likely to get Americans killed than anything I said. I do not claim that we should sit back and hope the Muslims fix things on their own. Not by a long shot. I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.
What I simply cannot abide is this notion of hysterical demands that we go out and kill ALL Muslims. It is not within the realm of rational thinking. Are we suddenly Crusaders? Too ridiculous to even think about. It is pack mentality. I cannot abide that, and I have seen a lot of that kind of thinking on the various threads here. Let us use the white-hot knife of clear thinking to deal with Muslim leaders. Once they change, the billion or so ‘regular’ Muslims will follow - no doubt happy for the relief. Killing an entire race of people? My god. How can anyone make such a statement. Calling the world’s first or second largest religion an ‘organization of terrorism’??? Give me a break.
One last thing - The Islamic people have had centuries to affect change…. I tried to explain why they may not have been able to accomplish this. Hierarchial forms of government do not embrace change whatsoever. They lose power if they do. When religion runs those governments, the stakes are higher as a man will die more willing for his religion than for politics.
Thank you for the time you’ve taken to respond.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.31.05 @ 12:34 am
Heliotrope, your reponse is appreciated, duly noted and very clearly understood.
But, do you really feel that the history lesson was necessary? I’m well aware of this history. I’ll give in to long winded diatribes, but JESUS CHRIST!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not insulted nor I am insulting you. Granted it was me that strayed from the topic and hand. (Michael Grahams comments about Islam)I just thought I’d throw in a bit of mirth to, lets’ say “file the egdes off the square.”
The facts are people like Graham and some of the people on this thread believe that attacking the Islamic faith verbally is okay. We all know that mounting verbal threats will eventually lead to physical confrontations.
I can fairly say this to all who believe that Islam as a religion is a threat. A war is being fought as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan. The miliitary is in dire need of personnel. (recruitment is still at an all time low) If you truly believe there is a threat, the time is now to do something. There are millions of people who live by the Koran in these war zones. Verbal attacks don’t kill terrorist, bullets and bombs do. Anyone 17 to 39 can join.
You have an opportunity to attack them NOW! Go, help spread Democracy. I’ll even bet in the end you’ll win.
For those who simply want to spread the hate, keep BLOGGING!
Comment by Hipstreet — 07.31.05 @ 12:51 am
Hipster, no problem, however you will admit that wayward priests are just as miniscule by compariosn to the 70 million US catholis at large. Which was the whole point of my excersie.
Both are by context miniscule, however the complicity (both passive and active, ie financial/political/moral supporters) factor, to which Indy, Helio & Phoenix have been going back and forth on is a whole new equation that doesn’t look at all good for the muslims.
I’m not about to hazard a guess, suffice to say, even a lowball 10% (150 million) support is baaaaad news.
I don’t think you can even find 1% of the catholics who will support the fallen clergy, in spite of their actions.
On the other hand, if you want to compare abuse of students by their teachers, or sex offenders and the population at large …
Comment by Andy — 07.31.05 @ 1:01 am
Phoenix #67 wrote, “I taught writing”. I hope you didn’t call your students ignorant just because you disagreed with them.
Phoenix wrote, “The man is too stupid for me to waste my time”. Yet you write many posts here wasting your time.
Phoenix wrote, “As for me speaking convincingly to the substantial evidence in history, tradition and the Koran that it is a religion of peace, I will refrain.” That’s all you should’ve done in all of your posts. Instead of name calling Independent and I would like you to prove why you think the way you think. We thing Graham did a wonderful job outlining why he thinks the way he thinks. It simply isn’t enough to just call him names.
The reason I say you are all over the place is because you condemn Graham for what he writes and then you write things like this “As for Muslim leaders, I agree completely that it is they who must decry the activities of the terrorists. Could it be they like things just the way they are?
And then you write again, “Since I’m forced to wander away from my original contention that Graham is an idiot”. Ohhh. With all of the name calling you’d think we could get an answer as to what statement of fact that Graham wrote was untruthful. Or could you prove the opposite as Independent asked and I’m asking. No. You say.
You then write, “I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.” Let me play your game. My that was ignorant and stupid. I can’t believe you’d write something so irresponsible. [just think of me as a mirror here, it’ll help you understand my style]
It’s like this. It seems that you simply disagree with Graham’s statement. Many disagree. Many agree. Many who are either politicians or are in the media will even do as much as possible to distance themselves from Graham because of political correctness. Political Correctness comes from people being denigrated or ousted or spat upon for their speech. To me, it seems as if you are from the political correctness crowd. Will you admit that much? You still haven’t pointed to one statement of fact that was made that was untruthful. He formed his opinions from facts that you haven’t refuted and refuse to refute.
My whole point? I’m simply asking if you could moderate a little and say that you disagree with Graham. There is no need for the name calling. You have a right to your opinion and Graham has just as legitimate a right to his. And I still maintain [something you glossed over and didn’t understand] that muslims could stand to learn from Graham’s article. They could use it as a realization that they need to do more to convince others that they aren’t interested in smiting or killing the infidel as the Koran states.
Comment by Baklava — 07.31.05 @ 3:19 am
La Shawn:
Graham no doubt was “over the top”.
But the knee-jerk reaction of the management was predictable.
And 100 E-mails? Give me a break. No doubt Muslims at large did not send these E-mails - I believe they were sent by CAIR and their cronies - somewhat like the Democratic boilerplate E-mails.
But aside from Graham’s rantings - In Catholic school, we learned of “sins of omission” - standing idly by while our neighbors are being harassed and injured and killed.
Such was the sin of standing idly by when Blacks were being lynched, etc..
Likewise, fear of retaliation no doubt restrains decent Muslims from speaking out aginst jihadists. but the time has come to say “enough is enough”. If they don’t, perhaps Graham is, in part, correct.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 07.31.05 @ 8:51 am
Someone so “disgusted” by the “Christian Right” shouldn’t be commenting on a conservative Christian’s blog. This is America (thank God), and you have a right to express your disgust against us, but you won’t do it on this blog. - Admin
Comment by mak — 07.31.05 @ 9:21 am
Wow I’ve been censured and I truly wasn’t trying. I thought what I said was something that was akin to words of “healing” and “hope” tenets of the Christian “Right” and “Left” and I also thought that what I wrote was more political than religious anyway but aparently I made too strong a point and as per the party line that you aparently uphold to the gills it was disregarded and discredited by taking two words that I used in my comment putting them together as if I said it just the way you wrote it. This is a clear case of media manipulation that the “Christian Right” uses to hide truths and propogate myth as reality. I didn’t then, or now say I was “disgusted by the Christian Right” but now anyone who can’t read what I actually wrote will never know that. I am sorry I didn’t have the foresight to see that my words not only might not make it to your comment section but could be manipulated into something entirely different. I would have saved them instead of giving them to you so freely in the spirit of the American way. I guess you live and you learn. But also in the spirit of the American way I must ask you if it is at all possible for you to email me back my offensive words so that I can see what exactly it was that made you ban them from your site and not provide equal time to this issue. If that can be done swell. If not that’s fine too but I know that I am hurt by the fact that I misjudged you and wish that it wasn’t so.
I’ll allow this comment so readers can see what I’m dealing with. While you may have intended your comment to be strictly politically, I didn’t read it that way. When you say “Christian Right,” you’re referring to Christians who are politically conservative. I don’t like labels, but that’s the way it is. And I have no idea what “in the spirit of America” means, but there’s no need to explain. Let’s just close this out. - Admin
Comment by mak — 07.31.05 @ 10:17 am
Baklava:
In order of your comments to me in #80:
1. No, I did not call my students ignorant. They never disagreed with me. I taught English, not political science. Though, had any had the temerity to disagree with me on how to write correctly, I would have flogged them soundly with my ruler.
2. “The man is too stupid for me to waste my time.†This was in answer to someone’s suggestion that I stuff some proof down Graham’s throat to answer his declaration that NOBODY can say Islam is a religion of peace. You omitted the context of my statement. Read the whole.
3. Why should I refrain from commenting on Graham? I answered every comment addressed to me with the sincere intention of making my position clear. Do you run this blog? Are you its governor? Why not let Independent as me to prove why I think as I do. I think he did a great job asking me to clarify, explain and expand on the various subjects of last night’s postings. I agree that you think Graham did a wonderful job outlining why he thinks the way he thinks. I don’t. I detailed my reasons several times throughout my initial comments. I think Graham is an idiot. He cannot write. He is a fool. He is most certainly entitled to his opinion - just as I am entitled to mine. He called an entire race of people terrorists. I call him an idot. If you wish for me to prove why I think the way I do about Graham’s writing, go back and read my original comments.
4. “The reason I say you are all over the place…†I am not all over the place. The thread is. The sentence of mine you quoted in this paragraph is in response to something someone wrote to me that was way beyond my original intent to show what a fool Graham is. Once again, keep it in context Mr. Baklava.
5. “And then you write again, ‘Since I’m forced to wander away…’. You need to go back and reread that comment in context. You will see where I use the word ‘untruthful’. As for “or could you prove the opposite as Independent asked and I’m asking. No. You say.†Correct. There is no opposite to my declaration that Graham is untruthful and is an idiot. Graham is both. I don’t need to prove myself. Mr. Graham does. He is the one who wrote an article that is as sophomoric as any uniformed teenager with no writing experience.
6. “You then write, ‘I’m all for shoot first, check for bombs later.†So, you think the British police were irresponsible in shooting that guy in the subway?
[just think of me as a mirror here, it’ll help you understand my style] I already know your style, Mr. Baklava. I’ve been monitoring this site for a while, and I see your style is to peruse all commentary, go back and pick out bits and pieces out of context and to try to slam-dunk the commentor with your pseudo-erudite ramblings. Nice cheap-shot tactics in an effort to come off as smart and important.
7. “It’s like this.†I do simply disagree with Mr. Graham. I stated why, proved it and the rest of the thread’s rambling followed. As for the rest of your comments: Yes, anyone with a grain of sense will distance themselves from this idiot. You could not be more wrong in your definition of political correctness. PC is the attempt not to hurt anyone’s precious feelings to the point we have lost sight of our ability to stand for what we believe is right. I loathe PC. I have made many comments against it on other blogs, and have gone so far as to say it will bring down our civilization. The last two sentences of that paragraph are totally false. Go back to my original comments and you will see. Mr. Graham offers not one fact that is not subject to his own distorted world view. The man is an intellectual phony.
8. “My whole point?†You have no point, Mr. Baklava, other than to do what you do best: Insult the integrity of the commentors on this blog. If it makes you feel good to do it, go for it. Free speech is free speech, but I doubt you fool too many members of this blog with your snarky ways. “Muslims could stand to learn from Graham’s article.†I am not so sure Muslims who read Mr. Graham’s claim that ‘Islam is an ORGANIZATION of terrorism’ are going to take this man seriously enough to learn a thing from him. They are more likely to want to kill him for his blasphemy.
Comment by Phoenix — 07.31.05 @ 11:34 am
1) I’ll take that one as humor “had the temerity to disagree with me on how to write correctly, I would have flogged them soundly with my ruler.
2) ““The man is too stupid for me to waste my time.â€I think Graham is an idiot. He cannot write. He is a fool.”, is what I direct to your attention as being unpersuasive. You aren’t convincing people who thought that he had some statements of fact which helped him form his opinion. We asked for your statements of fact that helped you come to the opposite opinion. You refuse.
4) My opinion stands due to other posts of yours.
5) You wrote, Correct. There is no opposite to my declaration that Graham is untruthful and is an idiot. Graham is both. I don’t need to prove mysel