Wednesday, July 27, 2005

The Radical American Street?

At times, we hear what the views are of "The Arab Street." A few days ago, Michael Graham of Washington, D.C.'s WMAL-AM talk radio publicly uttered the words which many Americans may be thinking. So far, the station's management has taken no steps to reprimand Michael Graham.

The story about Graham's controversial words appeared in the Style Section of the Tuesday, July 26, 2005 edition of the Washington Post:
"...The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. 'The problem is not extremism,' Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. 'The problem is Islam.' He also said, 'We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam.'"

According to the Post article, Graham posted the following on WMAL's website:

"'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. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.'

"'Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.'"

Whether or not the above comparison of the BSA and Islam is valid , Graham's words made me stop to consider what he was saying. He is taking the if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck position, but goes further than using that old saw.

Is Graham implying violence against all Muslims? If so, are his words promoting hate crime? Do his words, in and of themselves, constitute a hate crime? If his words constitute a hate crime, then do the words of Wahhabists constitute a hate crime?

WMAL, owned by the Walt Disney Company (There's an irony!) and whose talk shows include the syndicated programs of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, takes the position that Graham's on-air words need to be considered in context:
"A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were 'amped up' but justified within the context of the program....

"Bloomquist...went on to defend Graham, saying, 'Remember that this is talk radio. We don't do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It's not "Washington Week in Review." It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It's designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that.'"

Apparently, Graham has a reputation as an activist. The article provides the following information near the end of the article;

"Graham made waves earlier this year when he scuffled with Montgomery County police after he tried to attend an event for illegal immigrants while wearing a T-shirt that read "INS (I Need Border Security)." He also recently led a rally in front of The Washington Post's building in the District seeking the dismissal of Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who wrote a story that inaccurately reported on alleged abuses of the Koran in the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Co.)."

Since the National Elections of 2004, WMAL has been having problems with its audience ratings--a drop of some 25%. Even so, statistical figures show that the station reaches 116,600 individual listeners every week.

Is Michael Graham attempting to resurrect the station's ratings? Or is he saying what he believes? And how many on the American Street agree with him?


At 7/27/2005 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is freedom of speech okay for Muslims, but it isn't acceptable for everyone else? Mr. Graham has done nothing wrong, and as you said, how many really do agree with his views?

This is the strategy being employed in Europe to silence criticism of the Muslim population, and over there, it's working.

At 7/27/2005 8:19 AM, Blogger goesh said...

Excellant post and timely! The PC crap going on in Europe won't happen here. The American street can manifest almost immediately. We saw the ' American street' in action when the 4th plane on 9/11 was taken down and crashed, thus saving the White House or Congress. I think mosques need to be monitored by listening devices and arrests made anytime any imam advocates terrorism and the mosque seized by the government and closed. Remember the KKK and how they lost property? Why isnt that happening here, right now? If terrorism is preached in any mosque and nobody reports it from the congregation, then they too should be arrested and charged with aiding and abeiting terrorism, stripped of citizenship and deported. In the final analysis, people bring most of their problems on themselves. I have no doubt in some mosques right here in the US terrorism is being preached and advocated.

At 7/27/2005 8:51 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

You wrote "I think mosques need to be monitored by listening devices and arrests made anytime any imam advocates terrorism and THE MOSQUE SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT and closed."

Exactly what my husband says! With the value of real estate property in the D.C. area (and elsewhere), seizing the property which is held at nonprofit, tax-free status (What a joke! And, in effect, taxpayer subsidy of sedition and treason)is a smart financial move as well.

Furthermore, the same procedure should be used with Islamic centers and Islamic schools, all of which sit on valuable and prime land.

At 7/27/2005 11:45 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

Good post.

"'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"

That is so true. There is just way to much acceptance of terrorism, not only from Muslims, but many on the left in the west (in my opinion).

At 7/27/2005 12:04 PM, Blogger Jason Pappas said...

I believe people are beginning to break the taboo against criticizing Islam. Freedom of speech is only good if we use it.

I think 7/7 and the statements by Van Gogh’s killer may have been the last straw. How many cases and examples transpire before you seem silly saying “but this is an exception?” And even when polls show half of Muslims expressing sympathy of some sort or another?

At 7/27/2005 4:03 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Thanks for stopping by. I enjoy your blog and visit there regularly.

Graham's comparison with the BSA really got me to thinking. So often, comparisons are made between Islam and Christianity (occasionally Judaism as well).

If the "handbook" of any organization advocates the disobedience of civil law, that organization is suspect, as far as I'm concerned--even if the organization wears the label "religion." What I'm saying applies to the likes of Eric Rudolph as well.

The rule of civil law is an inherent part of the American ideal, and we must defend it if we are to maintain our freedoms.

At 7/27/2005 4:29 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I agree that the London bombings and the statements by Van Gogh are having an unintended effect--a GOOD, unintended effect. Furthermore, after the 7/7 bombings, some of the imams in London said outrageous things which made their way into the mainstream media.

9/11 was my wake-up call. With the recent acceleration in attacks and with the outrageous statements from Muslim exremists and from those who sympathize with the extremists, the general public is starting to awaken (should've happened immediately following 9/11, but so many Westerners are ostriches and just prefer not to see the ugly truth about Islamism). I hope this new awakening continues because such awareness will result in a closer examination of the danger facing Western civilization. The Muslim polls you mention are also intensifying general awareness.

In both the recent and remote past, within Islam, criticism and rational analysis of Islam have usually met with a dead end (pun intended). Are there Muslims waiting and wanting to moderate and secularize Islam? That's the big question, isn't it?

As you pointed out, freedom of speech is a key element in this awakening process, which must continue apace.

At 7/27/2005 4:31 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Exactly! Silencing criticism (another manifestation of pc) is a step toward despotism.

At 7/28/2005 7:55 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said...

Osama bin Laden eats pork.

I feel better, now.

At 7/28/2005 8:51 PM, Blogger Warren said...

"Osama bin Laden eats pork.

Most probably does.

Seems to me that when they found Saddam, his larder had tins of Spam. Spam is made from pork shoulder and ham.

Do you think that maybe, 'eating on the run', their diets might be similar?


At 7/28/2005 8:53 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Michael Graham needs to stop sugar-coating the truth.

The truth is, we're standing in Byzantium debating the wingspan of angel wings as the Islamic barbarians that swept over the Seven Churches of Asia Minor of 1st Century Christianity (Christ sent letters to them in the Book of Revelation) crash at our gates.

At 7/29/2005 8:00 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Muslims adjust their "rules" to fit the situation. The most inconsistent bunch on the face of the planet--except for leftists, who are equally inconsistent and resort to ad-hominem attacks when losing a debate.

I suppose that their moon-god allah allows for pork-eating in special circumstances.

At 7/29/2005 8:02 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
Some Christians are asking, "Is Islam the anti-Christ?" Some Christians have made a good case for such a position.

Michael Graham got fired for speaking his words. Talk about a violation of First Amendment rights!

At 8/02/2005 9:34 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Islam is not the Antichrist, but is certainly an Antichrist. Going back to the original Greek, the prefix anti- denotes replacement or substitution, not opposition. By original meaning, you'd have to have someone or something claiming to be Jesus' replacement or stand-in on Earth to qualify (I'll let Catholics worry about what that makes the Pope).

Anywho, we'll find how how the world ends soon enough. Now is not the time to withdraw from the world and wait.

At 8/02/2005 9:36 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

strike one how, and add an out

"..we'll find out how..."

damn typos

At 8/02/2005 9:47 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
An anti-Christ is the replacement? I didn't know that!

Didn't Charles Manson claim to be Christ?

I don't know what the above statement has to do with what we're discussing, but I felt like tossing it in.

Could "anti-Christ" be interpreted to mean a religion which replaces Christianity? I don't recall the term "Christianity" being used in the New Testament, though perhaps "Christian" was.

Of course, the word "Christ" has another meaning, other than Jesus. Isn't it the Greek term for Messiah? Christ wasn't Jesus' name, but a title given to him, as in "the Christ." Am I correct here?

PS: I wouldn't even have noticed your typo if you hadn't mentioned it. I'm that tired right now because of being online almost all day.

At 8/02/2005 10:38 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

You are correct on the meaning of the word / title "Christ"

The word "Christian" - literally "little Christ" - was originally a Roman slur to make fun of the followers of 1st Century
Christendom, which was originally a sect of Judaism.

We're getting too deep into theological implications here, but by standard New Testament definition, any belief which substitutes Jesus Christ with something else is "anti-Christ." This would seem to include Islam's "prophecies."

At 8/02/2005 10:50 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

On another note, Charles Manson is what happens when you let criminals out of jail and feed them enough LSD to melt titanium.

At 8/03/2005 8:23 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Islam indeed intends to replace Christianity (and all other faiths as well)..."Islam's 'prophecies,'" as you mentioned in your comment Of course, the lying pr muslim- groups say otherwise.

I have a very well-educated Christian friend who has done extensive study of the Koran. Several years ago, she wrote a paper which "made the case for Christ from the Koran itself." I haven't read the paper, and I need to ask her to allow me to see it. I rather imagine that she exposes all the plagiarism in the Koran.

At 8/03/2005 8:33 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

When is Charles Manson again up for parole?

If anyone ever deserved execution, he does.

Back in my college days, the leftist anarchists passed around the hat: "Free Charlie." Idiots, probably hopped-up on something, actually tossed in money. But not me. Even back then, I was able to get off a nasty verbal launch; I almost got kicked out of the cafeteria, but I got my message across. The hat was never passed again.

For a few years following Manson's conviction and the aborted attempt on President Ford's life, there was a graffiti sign on an overpass near me: "We love Charlie. -- The Family." The county finally sandblasted off the graffiti.

Shortly after the sandblasting, similar graffiti appeared elsewhere, again within a few blocks from me. Now the Charlie Manson stuff is gone. Replaced by MS-13.

Why are we yapping about Manson? Well, Manson was all hopped-up on drugs, and OBL is all hopped-up on jihadism--both of those megalomaniacs getting a high, but in different ways. All about mind control, huh?

At 10/06/2005 7:47 AM, Blogger Admin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home