Diana West refuses to capitulate, and has some words for those who do so:
Unbowed,if unemployed, Michael Graham issued a thought-provoking challenge as his airtime on "The O'Reilly Factor" ran down to a break. The topic under discussion was the conservative radio host's firing by Washington's WMAL — egged on by the terrorist-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — for having made his case, logically, forcefully, even regretfully, that "Islam is a terrorist organization." Before discussing Mr. Graham's final words on "O'Reilly," it's worth mentioning that Mr. Graham's argument linking terrorism to Islam is posted at JewishWorldReview.com in a column he wrote after the second London Underground bombing. Sure, the stand-alonescare quote ("I. is a T. O.") collides head-on with 21st-century sensibilities, but Mr. Graham builds his argument carefully. He makes the politically incorrect kind of sense, supported by fact (e.g., more than one-in-four British Muslims said they wouldn't tell police of a planned terrorist attack) and observation (Islamic teachings drive terrorist jihad), that the open-eyed child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" would instantly recognize. But not his bosses at WMAL — not, it seems, after CAIR objected. When Mr. Graham refused to "apologize," the ABC-Disney-owned station fired him.All of which is what he went on "O'Reilly" to discuss, offering a factually reasoned discourse on the controversy. (Good stats, conceded an outgunned Bill O'Reilly.) And then, in closing, Mr. Graham said this: Tell me one terrorist attack that's going to be stopped by ending this conversation — that is, by WMAL taking Mr. Graham off the air.
An interesting notion. WMAL is no bureau of Homeland Security, but given the line the radio station decided Mr. Graham crossed over global terrorism (jihad) and its central role in Islam, maybe it's worth wondering whether we are safer because Michael Graham isn't pursuing his on-air line of inquiry. Surely, we are more "sensitive," meaning more guarded, even nervous about what is currently permissible to say, at least according to CAIR's enforcers. Even so, ending a conversation about jihad and Islam doesn't end Islamic jihad. Nor does cutting the talk about links between Islam and terrorism cut the links between Islam and terrorism. The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits, academics, politicians — hop off.
As I see how many media outlets on the Left and Right continue to ignore my book, even as it remains on the bestseller lists, I can't help but wonder myself at the large numbers of those who have jumped off the train of logic. Read it all.
Neither Mr. Graham's speech or lack of about Islamic violence nor Britain's present but rather late push to force out radical hate-speakers will make us safer, for Jihad is eternal and Islamists and the silent majority that wishes their success won't be satisfied until the entire world is Muslim, dhimmis, or dead. This Islamist vanguard will use any means necessary to achieve this goal.
The silencing of critics is vital for this effort in order to maintain Islam's practices, many of which are backward and inhuman, for one doesn't miss what one doesn't know about, and it is a blessing not to be aware of a lifestyle that can not be achieved because of the repressive nature of Islam. Holding out hope for a true democracy and true freedom can not be allowed.
All critics, such as Mr. Graham, brings the warts of islam into the light, exposing its hopelessness and inhumanity. For this reason, he and others must be silenced.
I happened to catch that O'Reilly interview, but missed the following day's show.
I wonder if O'Reilly's email suggested that his opinion of Islam was incorrect?
"The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits, academics, politicians — hop off."
But for some ignorance can be bliss.