Conservative radio host fired for anti-Islam remarks.

[towski]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9049943/

WASHINGTON - Conservative radio host Michael Graham was fired Monday by a Washington station after he refused to apologize for calling Islam “a terrorist organization.”

WMAL-AM had suspended Graham after his July 25 broadcast drew protests from the Council on American-Islam Relations. Graham, who had a daily three-hour talk on WMAL, had said, “We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam,” according to CAIR.

On his Web site Monday, Graham said WMAL had asked him to retract his comments about Islam and deliver an on-air apology. “I refused,” he aid. “And for that refusal, I was fired.”

[Djj1973]

I listened to his show a few times and My feeling is that it is not a big loss.

[towski]

I listened to his show a few times and My feeling is that it is not a big loss.


:) Reading the article, he didn't sound particularly intelligent or informed...

[Djj1973]

He is a bit of a radical when it came to FP but he really shines with domestic issues. What is funny is his voice is all over that station doing spots for various clients. And you can still hear the occasional spot that he does. I guess they let a few slip by.

He thinks he is funny when he calls his wife "The Warden".

[towski]

Think he'd have gotten fired if he'd said "Radical Islam" instead of just "Islam"?

[Djj1973]

I am not sure. That station is one of the oldest in DC it hosts Both Rush and Hannity and at one time Dr. Luara and a few local right leaning wanna-be political pundits. Aside from that, they are pretty PC. I am willing to bet that Gram is correct that the station bowed to pressure.

[jamesrage]

If the host had a huge listening audiance the host proably would not have been fired,although the pc idiots do push hard to silence speech that states the obvious.

[Djj1973]

I do not know how good his rating were. They were better than DR luara who he replaced.

[Soren]

Yawn! If only someone would do the same to Micheal Savage.

[jamesrage]

Yawn! If only someone would do the same to Micheal Savage.


You only wish.

[Soren]

Yes, I recognize that there is a market for such hateful drivel, so I recognize that it will probably continue.

[cpwill]

a bit fuller of the quote:
Because of the mix of Islamic theology that — rightly or wrongly — is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.

so it's hardly as blunt as it would seem from the "islam is a terrorist organization" soundbite; although perhaps still somewhat over the line.

Let’s parse (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200508221729.asp) this, shall we?

Islamic theology is amenable to the interpretation that it promotes violence. This cannot be open to debate among serious people at this point. The scriptures speak for themselves, including some of the final (chronologically, that is) verses in the Koran — specifically, the Ninth Sura’s verse 5 (“… [F]ight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …”); and verse 29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the jizya [a poll-tax required in Islamic lands from those who do not convert to Islam] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”)

Or, for example, these (which I’ve cited here before): Sura 47:4 (Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens….”); Sura 2:191 ("[S]lay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith")
....

Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence — driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation — has long been coupled with “an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name.”

The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled “heterodox” or “heretical,” for such notions are Western ones that have “little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.”

Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, (b) it has spawned violence, and (c) it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.

...

The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree — vehemently — with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself — something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.

This was not a case of loathsome bombast. Graham made a thoughtful and defensible argument that was marred by a poor choice of words he should have realized could be painful to some of his natural allies. It was worthy of a wince, not a pink slip. In firing him, ABC not only chooses sides — the wrong side — in our most important public debate. It helps the shock troops of political correctness turn the proper focus of that debate, Islam, into a third rail.

[Strel]

Yawn! If only someone would do the same to Micheal Savage.


Oh please do. That guy is like Coulter on crack.

[Churlant]

Company Develops Defective Merchandise:

Figures cost of lawsuit settlement... if settlement < cost to fix item, they don' fix it...

Same with talk radio. If this guy's ratings had been worth the fallout from such comments, he'd still be on the air.

Evidently, Savage is better at being an idiot.

-JC

[jamesrage]

Company Develops Defective Merchandise:

Figures cost of lawsuit settlement... if settlement < cost to fix item, they don' fix it...

Same with talk radio. If this guy's ratings had been worth the fallout from such comments, he'd still be on the air.

Evidently, Savage is better at being an idiot.

I find Savage a very intellegent person.He knows what he is very educated about the issues he talks about and speaks with such passion,something that the other conservative talk show host completely lack.I would hardly call accidently flipping over to a AM station and hearing him scream at some liberal listener a adaquade amount of time to actually gather enough info on him to form a legitimate opinion of him.

[Churlant]

I find Savage a very intellegent person.He knows what he is very educated about the issues he talks about and speaks with such passion,something that the other conservative talk show host completely lack.I would hardly call accidently flipping over to a AM station and hearing him scream at some liberal listener a adaquade amount of time to actually gather enough info on him to form a legitimate opinion of him.

Actually, I used to listen to him nightly on my way home from work - when I had the late shift. I find him to be very entertaining... but that's all he is - entertainment. What he expresses shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the latest !WWE Smackdown! or other such "drama".

-JC

[jamesrage]

Actually, I used to listen to him nightly on my way home from work - when I had the late shift. I find him to be very entertaining... but that's all he is - entertainment. What he expresses shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the latest !WWE Smackdown! or other such "drama".

So you do not find illegal immigration a serious subject?
You do not find that SIECUS wanting to teach children as young as 5 about sex a serious matter?
You do not find a rancher getting stripped of his rights and his ranch because some illegals sued not a serious matter?

[towski]

So you do not find illegal immigration a serious subject?
You do not find that SIECUS wanting to teach children as young as 5 about sex a serious matter?
You do not find a rancher getting stripped of his rights and his ranch because some illegals sued not a serious matter?

I find those all very serious matters. And I put as much credence in what Michael Savage has to say about them as I do John Cena, Triple H, Hulk Hogan, and Shawn Michaels. Wait, those guys are on Raw, and Churlant said Smackdown. Sorry. I put as much credence in what Batista, JBL, and Eddie Guerroro say. Wait, take JBL out. Very intelligent.

[Churlant]

So you do not find illegal immigration a serious subject?
You do not find that SIECUS wanting to teach children as young as 5 about sex a serious matter?
You do not find a rancher getting stripped of his rights and his ranch because some illegals sued not a serious matter?

Sure these are serious subjects - which should (and are) taken up by individuals who are more credible and on a regular basis.

Hell, even Limbaugh manages to come out with a decent bit every now and then, but plenty of people manage to put out nothing but decent, even commentary.

These types of individuals only add to the division in America. Their net impact on society is highly negative, despite the occasional gem of punditry.

-JC

[Soren]

So you do not find illegal immigration a serious subject?Translation: If you don't think illegal immigrants are the scum of the earth, you don't think it's a serious issue.

You do not find that SIECUS wanting to teach children as young as 5 about sex a serious matter?Who?

[jamesrage]

Who?

Look it up.

[Strel]

I find Savage a very intellegent person.

Savage is a moron, a terrible writer, and a proven liar. My opinion of him is formed from reading portions of that piece of trash he called a book.

[jamesrage]

Sure these are serious subjects - which should (and are) taken up by individuals who are more credible and on a regular basis.

If he is not credible then why can you find practically everything he speaks about on the web and usually by multiple sources?

[Churlant]

Savage is a moron, a terrible writer, and a proven liar. My opinion of him is formed from reading portions of that piece of trash he called a book.

True... but he IS funny, in a sadistic sort of way. :D

-JC

[jamesrage]

Savage is a moron, a terrible writer, and a proven liar. My opinion of him is formed from reading portions of that piece of trash he called a book.



If he is a liar then prove it.

[Churlant]

If he is not credible then why can you find practically everything he speaks about on the web and usually by multiple sources?

Well if you find it on the web, it must be true! :rolleyes:

I stand by my analysis. There are individuals who are capable of introducing equal subject matter without using it as a weapon against others in dishonest and often hateful ways.

-JC

[Soren]

If he is not credible then why can you find practically everything he speaks about on the web and usually by multiple sources?So what! I can find that for white-supremicists who blame Zionist Jews for the world's problems too, but it doesn't make me believe them. :eek:

[jamesrage]

I stand by my analysis. There are individuals who are capable of introducing equal subject matter without using it as a weapon against others in dishonest and often hateful ways.


Sometimes the truth has to be used as metal baseball bat on someone's knees to make them understand what is going on.

[Churlant]

Sometimes the truth has to be used as metal baseball bat on someone's knees to make them understand what is going on.

:confused:

Hate and Lies = Baseball Bat of Truth? :lol:

Even if you COULD force the truth on others, which you can't, Savage wouldn't qualify.

-JC

[Soren]

:confused:

Hate and Lies = Baseball Bat of Truth? :lol:

Even if you COULD force the truth on others, which you can't, Savage wouldn't qualify.We're certainly trying in Iraq. Hope we don't get a baseball bat to the head for trying.

[Churlant]

We're certainly trying in Iraq. Hope we don't get a baseball bat to the head for trying.

Well, I DO know ONE thing: Wonder Woman is gonna be upset when she finds out she's supposed to've been using a Baseball Bat of Truth, and not a dinky Lasso, all this time. :D

-JC

[JustinH]

Savage is a moron, and fortunately, his hate speech was taken off the air here (and I live in IDAHO... that's right the MOST conservative state in the US). He was replaced by Michael Medved. He's still a bit of a whacko, but at least he has the brain to have an intelligent debate on the show. This is contrary to Savage's, "I KNOW EVERYTHING YOU STUPID COMMUNIST... click."

Knowing you listen to Savage certainly sheds some light on your attitude towards just about everyone James :D.

[Soren]

Savage is a moron, and fortunately, his hate speech was taken off the air here (and I live in IDAHO... that's right the MOST conservative state in the US). He was replaced by Michael Medved. He's still a bit of a whacko, but at least he has the brain to have an intelligent debate on the show. I spent a lot of time in Idaho and can definately vouch for that, though it's not really any more conservative than where I live in CA. What part of the state are you from, if you don't mind my asking?

[towski]

If he is not credible then why can you find practically everything he speaks about on the web and usually by multiple sources?

Oooh pick me pick me!!!

Because either:

A) he doesn't think for himself, and uses things he gets off the web

or

B) idiots verbally regurgitate the crap he says all over the web.

[jamesrage]

Savage is a moron, and fortunately, his hate speech was taken off the air here (and I live in IDAHO... that's right the MOST conservative state in the US). He was replaced by Michael Medved. He's still a bit of a whacko, but at least he has the brain to have an intelligent debate on the show. This is contrary to Savage's, "I KNOW EVERYTHING YOU STUPID COMMUNIST... click."

Knowing you listen to Savage certainly sheds some light on your attitude towards just about everyone James .

Savage does have intelligent debates on his show.It is when some idiot with some leftist idea refuses to answer any questions or throws in a retarded accusation then it goes to "I KNOW EVERYTHING YOU STUPID COMMUNIST... click."

[JustinH]

I spent a lot of time in Idaho and can definately vouch for that, though it's not really any more conservative than where I live in CA. What part of the state are you from, if you don't mind my asking?

I live in Lewiston, about 2 hours south of Coeur D' Alene. Comparatively, I'm in a more liberal part of the state. We actually have an elected democrat or two ;).

Savage does have intelligent debates on his show.It is when some idiot with some leftist idea refuses to answer any questions or throws in a retarded accusation then it goes to "I KNOW EVERYTHING YOU STUPID COMMUNIST... click."

Well, I've listened to him, and I have yet to hear anything but name-calling and utter stupidty. Even my father, who is a right-wing corporate loving whacko can't stand Savage.

A) he doesn't think for himself, and uses things he gets
B) idiots verbally regurgitate the crap he says all over the web.

C) a mixture of the two.

[cpwill]

i listen to savage, but only for short periods of time and then mostly for amusement. i can stand rush longer than i can stand him. i have problems with hannity, too; although i like him much better, and infinitely prefer neal boortz and O'Reilly.

[JustinH]

Have you listened to Medved Will? He spends the majority of his show debating, and he is extremely skilled at it.

[cpwill]

not sure he's available where i am, i've never heard of him.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Christ sakes. Why must it always be me who asks the questions which should have been done in the first place?

1) Who owns the station?
2) Who owns that parent company?
3) Do either of the companies have affilates in other countries?

If a larger multinational company owns the station, and they are part of a larger, diversifed company that operates in other countries, considering the ability for such blantant hate to be spread around the world through the net, it makes business sense to fire the guy and save yourself a polential radical outcry aganist your company(ies).

[MikeD4o7]

a bit fuller of the quote:
Quote:
Because of the mix of Islamic theology that — rightly or wrongly — is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.


so it's hardly as blunt as it would seem from the "islam is a terrorist organization" soundbite; although perhaps still somewhat over the line.


Well obviously that one statement is just simply wrong... but other than that one sentence, I actually agree with him. There clearly are passages in the Koran that promote violence, explicitly. Of course there are plenty positive passages as well stressing charity and so on... but does it matter when all it takes is citing scripture plainly and clearly to demonstrate that the slaughter of nonbelievers is not only acceptable, but God's command? In that sense, the Koran is far worse of an influence on humanity nowadays than the Bible is, especially considering Jesus' message was basically one of kindness and nonviolence... even if somebody turns mainly to the Old Testament, the explicit call for violence is still more prevalent in the Koran than in the OT.... in the OT that kind of behavior is demonstrated by God more than it's preached as law as in the Koran.

So now would that guy get fired if he had said what I just did? Probably. It's probably offensive to all Christians, Muslims, and Jews.... but it's an honest evaluation that was performed, in my opinion, objectively.

I really don't think this guy should have been fired if he could have been given a chance to clarify or just retract that one sentence and keep his original point... but I guess that's free markets for ya.

[Soren]

I live in Lewiston, about 2 hours south of Coeur D' Alene. Comparatively, I'm in a more liberal part of the state. We actually have an elected democrat or two ;).I spent my time in southeastern Idaho but I heard about how you guys had almost as many Libertarians in your state legislature for a while as you had Democrats.

[JustinH]

I spent my time in southeastern Idaho but I heard about how you guys had almost as many Libertarians in your state legislature for a while as you had Democrats.

Yep, more than once actually. But even Idaho thinks the Libs are nuts :lol:.

[jamesrage]

i listen to savage, but only for short periods of time and then mostly for amusement. i can stand rush longer than i can stand him. i have problems with hannity, too; although i like him much better, and infinitely prefer neal boortz and O'Reilly.

I Listen to O'Reilly on my way home from school.I sometimes listen to the Glen Beck show,he is very entertaining.But as far as I am concerened Savage is much better than all of them.

[nogoodname90]

Let’s parse this, shall we?

Islamic theology is amenable to the interpretation that it promotes violence. This cannot be open to debate among serious people at this point. The scriptures speak for themselves, including some of the final (chronologically, that is) verses in the Koran — specifically, the Ninth Sura’s verse 5 (“… [F]ight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …”); and verse 29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the jizya [a poll-tax required in Islamic lands from those who do not convert to Islam] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”)

im muslim and i havent seen that in the koran llol but if its there its probly true but also christans have the same thing bible has verses says the same thing for people who are not christain saying there gona burn by the devil and that stuff *rolls Eyes