<expletive deleted>Islam!
I don't. It seems pretty gentle to me.
He could have said "Islam is all about violence".
But he still used the phrase "the vast majority of Muslims who dont support terror ".
I'm not sure that's a true description, but at least it's pretty tame language.
Michael Graham was right. I think it is a long overdue response to Islam's indifference to violence in the name of Allah. I have a friend who is a convert to Islam and she lives in North Carolina, she says that she has left the mosque several times when they hosted speakers that preached violence towards Americans.
Ok, I'll do this on a national forum...
"Radical Islam is an organized, violent, hateful-based terrorist movement."
"Stevie-D"; August 2005
So there...Fire me...
To me, this is just weasley. There was nothing wrong with Graham's "choice of words."
People should read the entire transcript of that broadcast. There would be no question about the evidence Graham marshalled to support his "choice of words."
Yes, his words were confrontational---because they confront the truth. But "poorly chosen"? No. Precisely chosen and backed.
Perhaps one can quibble about whether the evidence for Graham's statements supports his conclusions (words), but I'm wondering, if one does support the evidence, how should Graham have worded his conclusion so to avoid a "poor choice of words"?
If Islam, based on the evidence Graham marshalled, is indeed an organization that harbors, supports and provides "justification" for terrorism, how should he gone about conveying the conclusion that Islam, as an organization, is a terrorist organization?
Graham made perfectly clear that he was not saying that every adherent of Islam was a terrorist.
National Review set the precedent itself when it surrendered to CAIR without a fight earlier this year.
National Review Caves in to CAIR
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1387083/posts
The Truth About Islam... From the Book That CAIR Didn't Want to Be Sold!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432014/posts
CAIR Fights to Block Sale of Book on Mohammed http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375717/posts
There are several other threads on this issue.
Oh, here's a brain teaser.
Let's say I join an environmental group.
Over time the group's leaders begin to teach that the group's charter allows for and even encourages violent acts as a way of furthering the group's goals.
Some people in the group actually commit terrorist acts in the name of the group's charter. They are not condemned for doing so. Rather, they are glorified by the group's leaders.
In fact, the number of the group's members bent on committing terrorist acts is increasing over time. So is the lethality of their acts against innocents.
When the group's leaders are asked to reject the notion that the group's charter allows for and encourages terrorist acts as a way of furthering the group's goals, the leaders refuse to do so.
When the group's leaders are asked to take action to tell the group's members that terrorism in the name of the group's charter, or for the purpose of furthering the group's goals, is not acceptable, they refuse to do so.
In fact, the group's leaders affirmatively claim that there are at least some instances where terrorism in the name of the group's charter and goals is justified.
Moreover, when polled, a substantial and representative percentage of the group's members state that they believed particular terrorist acts (such as bombing the tube in London) were justified by the group's charter/goals and by the teachings of the group's leaders.
When some of the group's leaders and members state that terrorism is never justified by the group's charter or goals, those individuals are condemned by the group, ousted, shunned (or targeted for death).
I am not a terrorist.
I do not agree that my organization's charter or goals ever justifies terrorism.
However, at this point, I am a member of a terrorist organization.
Vice Islam for the environmental group and that's all Graham said.
I sent Michael Graham an e-mail last week asking if WMAL was going to fire him and received the following response.
CAIR WINS, FREE SPEECH LOSES, GRAHAM FIRED
The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC.
On July 25th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that I be "punished" for my on-air statements regarding Islam and its tragic connections to terrorism. Three days later, 630 WMAL and ABC Radio suspended me without pay for comments deemed "hate radio" by CAIR.
CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired. ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed "offensive," and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as "additional outreach efforts" to those people or groups who felt offended.
I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired.
It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn Al Qaeda for three months after 9/11.
As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster.
I for one cannnot apologize for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style "outreach effort" to appease the opponents of free speech.
-- Michael Graham
Does CAIR disagree with that observation?
I'm sure the ACLU will come to Michael defense, right? I think he should sue CAIR.
Example:
Salman Rushdie & girlfriend
Padma Lakshmi
Nothing has changed.
Jan 26, 1995
The Walt Disney Company announces that earnings have grown 31 percent in its fiscal first quarter. The company's investment in Euro Disney resulted in income of $27.9 million, reflecting a gain of $55 million from the sale of approximately 75 million shares to Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
In 2000:
Investment of $50 million in Walt Disney, operator of media networks, studio entertainment, theme parks and resorts, consumer products, Internet and direct marketing ventures.
The Walt Disney Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a diversified entertainment company worldwide.
It operates in four segments: Media Networks, Parks and Resorts, Studio Entertainment, and Consumer Products. Media Networks segment operates ABC Television Network (ABCTN) and ABC Radio Networks (ABCRN). ABCTN broadcasts programs in dayparts, such as early morning, daytime, late night, prime time, news, children, and sports; and has 226 primary affiliated stations.
ABCRN produces and distributes various programs and formats, including ABC News Radio and other news network programming, syndicated talk and music programs, ABC Sports programming, and 24-hour music formats to approximately 4,800 affiliated radio stations.