Comments on: Michael Graham Fired for Saying Islam is Terrorist Religion

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 04:33:33 +0000

Sorry, lefties. Like it or not, Islamic teaching is being used as a justification for ongoing terrorism and genocide. CAIR's leadership has been quoted as wanting to make the United States ruled by Islam.
The partial recounting about the crusades is endless. Should we not remember that the crusades were an effort to recover the holy lands that were brutally conquered by Muslims over centuries of conquest. Mohamed and his Muslim followers spread their totalitarian philosophy through continual violence over 14 centuries, and they continue that today. If there is a majority of peaceful Muslims, where is their outcry against the islamist terrorists? How many terrorist cells have they helped stop? Where is their support for the nations that they have chosen to live in?
Surely all world views have been used for ill by some people, not just religious views. Stalin, Hitler, China, and others murdered tens of millions for secular reasons.
Unfortunately, humans do awful things due to greed or pride or fear or sadism or hunger or evil spiritual influences. Hopefully, we can learn to cooperate before we destroy ourselves. It's not going well...

By: Fiery_Phoenix

Fiery_Phoenix — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:42:52 +0000

Funny you should bring up the Nazis, Ali. Guess who stopped them, and who collaborated with them? I'll give you one: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem certainly didn't do much to stop them...

By: Ali

Ali — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:53:41 +0000

I would be glad if Mr. Graham would count the number of human beings killed by the followers of every religion, starting from the repeated massacres of the Jews, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism, the World Wars and so on and so forth.
Could Mr. Graham please, tell me if Heroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by Muslims. And for that matter the name of the first and the only country in the world that has used Atomic weapons and has the largest stockpiles of Atomic, Chemical, biological and conventional arms and related paraphernelia and is dangerous enough to attack any country even on the falsest and insanest of reasons.
Could Mr. Graham please, tell me if the World Wars (where millions died) were fought between the Muslim countries.
Could Mr. Graham at least tell me the name/s of the country/ies, who educated, trained, equipped, organized, funded, supported and un-leashed Osama bin Laden and company, first against Russia and now for the promotion of their interest inthe region.
Could Mr. Graham please, tell me the name of the country who refused to take Osama bin Laden, when offered by a Muslim country, Sudan.
Could Mr. Graham please, tell me if 6 million jews were killed by Muslims and the Nazis were Muslim terrorists.
Could Mr. Graham please, tell me if 60,000 humans killed in a single day, in the first crusades in Jerusalem, were killed by the Muslims.
Could Mr. Graham please, confirm that in the second Crusades' not even a single human was killed after the city was retaken by the same people, who were killed in multitudes, in the first Crusades. Could he please, tell me who re-took the city.
I don't think Mr. Graham will be able to use the free speech thing here to answer these questions in a straight forward manner, but I wish to tell him that it takes just one history book to know the answers to all these questions.
Islam is the religion of peace and will always remain so. And I do not have to claim it. Just please, go through the translations of all the Quran and not the misconstrued verses which are taken out of context. And if your heart has an iota of freedom, you will definitely understand the true message of Islam.
Muslims have proved it for more than a thousand years that they value human life above anything and they will do so, till the day of judgement, even if others kill multitudes, in the name of "quickly ending the War", country, peace, freedom, democracy, race, witch hunt and God knows how many other names.
Just please, remove your agents from our ranks and files, I mean Osama, AlZawahiri, and so many others, who have been trained, equipped, financed, supported and un-leashed by the governments of your country for the basest of reasons, means the oil.

By: NIF

NIF — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:33:54 +0000

Bahng Chicka Bonck Beow

Today's dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny ... Workie-too-much Friday

By: osama

osama — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:42:09 +0000

Graham helps me recruit new jihadis.

I am happy.

By: Classical Values

Classical Values — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:13:16 +0000

Disarming silence

Anyone remember Janet Reno, the infamous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), and their pliant allies in the MSM,? I had thought that stuff like harassing gun shows and shaking down people who'd broken no laws was mostly behind...

By: mike irwin

mike irwin — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:47:18 +0000

By Michael Graham's logic, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is also a terrorist. After all, he defended radical anti-abortion protestors who not just supported (Grahamlogic) clinic bombings with silence, but actually made public statements in sympathy with the bombers. So, his, like his boss's reluctance to publicly condemn the violent perps, despite the lack of a direct relationship, by Michael Graham's logic, makes him as guilty as the bombers themselves. So, NARAL = Michael Graham. Hmmmmmmmmm.......

By: mike irwin

mike irwin — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:46:50 +0000

By Michael Graham's logic, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is also a terrorist. After all, he defended radical anti-abortion protestors who not just supported clinic bombings with silence, but actually made public statements in sympathy with the bombers. So, his, like his boss's reluctance to publicly condemn the violent perps, by Michael Graham's logic, makes him as guilty as the bombers themselves. So, NARAL = Michael Graham. Hmmmmmmmmm.......

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:42:55 +0000

The Council Has Spoken! First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan by...

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:04:00 +0000

Submitted for Your Approval First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council li...

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:26 +0000

The world is not a better place for the existence of CAIR. They cry wolf far too often to be taken seriously. This case, though, seems to have gone far beyond a press release from CAIR. The statement is offensive to anyone who abhors bigotry, for that is exactly what it is. Graham's piece said that all Muslims (that is, followers of the relgion known as Islam) are terrorists. That is a falsehood. To paint an entire population as anything, based on the behavior or characteristic of some members of that population, is what we call bigotry.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:13:48 +0000

Kent, he contradicts himself, but compare the passage you quote with this from JJ's post:

According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program.

Okay, al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Say I belong to al-Qaeda. Are you going to accept my argument that I'm not a terrorist? The main thing I draw from the post is that this Graham fellow is both stupid and vicious. Perhaps I'd have to listen to his show to discover his good qualities. Anyway, being fired by ABC for being a stupid, anti-Muslim bigot sounds like a ticket to ready employment with some other corporation (Clear Channel, anyone?).

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:41:04 +0000

I feel so sorry for all those people who are offended. You know, those whose skin is so thin that you just can't say anything to them that doesn't offend them.

Being offended is the best medium for anyone who is seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. We see it everywhere these days and quite frankly, It makes one sick to the point of throwing up.

Graham called it as he sees it and I agree with him, I am tired of those who don't have the ability to face the reality that Islam is a violent religion and as Graham stated, if the islamist don't want to be known that way, then Let them denounce the terrorist in a forceful way.

By: LJD

LJD — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:52:28 +0000

This would almost be comical if it weren't such an indicator of deeper problems in our society.

The left loves to scream about First Amendment "Free Speech", until it offends the bounds of political correctness.

If some one had said Christians are terrorists, infidels, killing innocent Muslims, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

I thought controversial talk radio was intended to encourage listeners to call in and voice their opinion, not make power plays to have an individual silenced.

By: jennifer

jennifer — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:41:48 +0000

Talk radio exists to make money. It is a commercial venture. When a group of consumers states we do not like your message and if you don't change this message we will hurt you commercially, the radio station decides which stance will make it a better profit. And while Islam has problems, there is no way of establishing a generalized "Christianity" that clearly and unambiguously argues against genocide, slavery or a large list of other abominations. Individuals who identify themselves as Christian hold nasty attitudes, historically they have driven nations in that direction and logically the definition of a "true Christianity" is pretty much impossible. Something like Jehovah's Witnesses might begin to qualify, but even there I don't see many selling their possessions and giving them to the poor. Now it is quite possible that Islam has fewer social conventions and more adherents of a wilder philosophy that reminds us of the days when heretics were burned, heathen converted or killed, serfs told their godly chosen place was serving, women... Certainly it is a fascinating and perhaps important debate. I would argue that it goes against Karl Rove's injunction because it involves "understanding," looking at the mechanisms that influence social and individual behavior, perhaps even arriving at pragmatic ways to tweak them. And as a social mechanism this particular act of firing will spur larger debate, it is neurons going off. Sadly or perhaps interestingly many of the mechanisms of social balance do not involve ideas of depth or complexity, they are relatively simple pulses that shift institutions one way or another. Given the propensity of certain "Christians" to want an excuse to go out and do vigilante things on Muslims, then a radio station, a part of the establishment saying there are consequences is useful. "Hey we think it might be a better strategy for reducing terrorism by striving not to overly alienate certain groups among us, rather than having you guys go out drunken groups and hassle Sikhs or anyone else you deem suspicious." In other words we are using a part of the system, to encourage a certain degree of etiquette and good sense. This was the position conservatives once argued for. Nowadays both sides are ambivalent about it, and haven't really thought through their position on the larger social philosophy. What they do is base their response to specific situations based on partisan notions. At this point you have alleged right leaning individuals arguing that if you disobey your employer or do not meet the specifications of a client, they have no right to fire you because you are standing up for your principles. Boy how these same people would snort if this argument came from the other side!