Bill O’Reilly made an extraordinary statement last night in addressing the difficult fact that “we can’t kill all the Muslims.” This follows an equally bizarre statement from his interviewee Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters that there are no Christian or Jewish terrorists.
Here is what O’Reilly said:
Barack Obama wants to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, in the Muslim world, which is a good thing and you know that. As a soldier, we can’t kill all the Muslims. So we wanna win as many hearts and minds of good moderate Muslims as we can. So he goes out of his way, you’re absolutely right, Colonel, he goes out of his way, to avoid the “Muslim terrorist” label, which clearly applies to Hasan.
Putting aside O’Reilly’s incredible statement, Peters also added to the interview with the question of where all the Christian terrorists are? He apparently was not alive when Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building or the recent shootings in churches by Christian gunmen.
It must be wonderfully liberating to be able to speak without an sense of the need for historical or factual accuracy.
Bet Colbert does an entire 5 minute bit on this one.
O’Reilly isn’t really the problem here. The problem is the throng of people that watch such drivel and agree with it. Whose ideology feeds from such sentiment.
This man serves a purpose and he is very good at it. Never underestimate the ability of those to keep the masses ignorant and divided.
Well this gives meaning to the term Peter principal. So any bets on how long it will be before you salute him as Brig. Gen.?
There needs to be a better way to honor veterans than accuse them of wanting to do some form of genocide to Muslims.
O’Reilly should speak for his own demented self and leave the veterans out of his bloviations.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/11/all-security-is-local.html
Methinks the Col. Peters was not paying very close attention during “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland.
I didn’t know Billo and Col. Peters employed a comedy writer.
Well Buddha,
I guess you should apply.
I do have limits on who I let sign my check, AY. Rupert is way, way out of bounds.
Bill O’Reilly: a self-appointed “World’s Foremeost Expert” on everything and anything. He’s one of my “triple B’s”–Bloated Bloviating Blowhards.
I’ve included him in my pantheon of political pop singers.
SHRILLO BILLO
Listen to his vocal crescendo
And not-so-subtle innuendo
Professor Turley,
Here’s an interesting story from tampabay.com:
Tampa police: marine reservist attacked Greek he mistook for terrorist
TAMPA — A Marine reservist armed with a tire iron beat and chased a man he thought was an Arab terrorist and even called 911 to say he was detaining the man, police said.
But the man he assaulted was actually a Greek Orthodox priest visiting from overseas who spoke limited English, police said.
That’s why police arrested reservist Jasen D. Bruce on a charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/tampa-police-marine-reservist-attacked-greek-priest-he-mistook-for/1050707
Here’s what nice christian boys do (story below). From everything that has come out so far it would appear that this govt. completely dropped the ball on Mr. “Terrorist”. He gave multiple indications that he was mentally unhinged and might be willing to act in a violent manner. The excuse given for failure by the Army to take action in his caae is that it is difficult to fire someone, even under these circumstances. Should we accept this assertion, what is not difficult is to take someone aside for observation and to ask them to receive mental health counseling. He worked for the military. If they relieve him of duties, he is relieved. They ignored clear warning signs. Now to those nice christian boys:
“A former Blackwater employee and an ex-U.S. Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”
In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.
These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia…”
Rcampbell,
Weren’t those Northern Irish Catholic? We all know they’re not really Christians anyways.
The usage of “terrorist” in this context is up to this point fallacious. I would submit that for an act to be terrorism there must be two or more people involved in a criminal conspiracy. The facts thus far show this man operated alone and so his actions are murder, if he is indeed guilty. Call me a cynic, but just because the government claims he is the shooter, doesn’t make it a fact. The whole episode just seems too pat for my tastes.
Gyges, I owe no fealty to your queen, and I shall yield her none.
Mike S.,
Agreed. I liked Glenn Greenwald’s column discussion of the word terrorist in this connection as well.
Mike S., I don’t know if terrorism requires a conspiracy, but I agree with you that the term is routinely abused by government sources, primarily to frighten people into submitting to evermore intrusive surveillance techniques. I believe that a fair investigation will reveal that this gentleman was seriously disturbed, told no one about his intentions and came apart at Ft. Hood only because that’s where he happened to be stationed at the time.
Turley: “He apparently was not alive when Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building ….”
McVeigh was engaged in Christian terrorism?
Since when?
If I understand O’Reilly correctly, he is suggesting that although the preferred course of action would be the killing of all Muslims, since that is not feasible our fallback position is to befriend as many of the “good ones” as possible.
Mike A.,
Shouldn’t Bill O’Reilly be judged the same way that states are on this issue; i.e. amorally?
That is part and parcel of your categorical imperative; is it not?
I’m sorry, but am I the only one that the term “Christian/Muslim terrorist” makes giggle? Oxymorons are supposed to elicit that response, no?
Buddha: “I’m sorry, but am I the only one that the term “Christian/Muslim terrorist” makes giggle? Oxymorons are supposed to elicit that response, no?”
I find the entire John Wayne/simplistic good/evil easy answer rap quite annoying. It’s the root cause of the authoritarian mindset: “Just point me in the general direction and tell me what to hate; I’ll follow you anywhere so long as you don’t make me think.”
Remember the days before the authoritarians; when the Republican party could still look at itself in the mirror while retaining a semblance of integrity?
Bob, esq wrote:
McVeigh was engaged in Christian terrorism?
I think the point is that McVeigh was a) engaged in terrorism and b) most definitely not a Muslim.
Mike A.,
That’s what I got! Bill is grieving because it just wouldn’t fly to commit genocide.
And anyone who denies the existence of Jewish terrorists has wilful blindness about exactly how the modern state of Israel was created … with active assistance from a terrorist group called the Stern Gang.
(One can also look at more modern episodes, if one is willing to endure the debris that will be thrown at you. Given the egregiously disproportionate numbers of civilians killed by the Israeli army, not calling it a terrorist organization is relying on semantics to hide some very ugly truths.)
Dave,
So insisting that words have definitions is semantics? Would you also accuse me of “relying on semantics” if I say that French Fries aren’t baked potatoes? Terrorism isn’t a catch all phrase meaning “immoral violent behavior.”
Perhaps O’Reilly may have chosen his words better, yet I do not think that he meant all Muslims. Not one bit. And, he is correct. This enemy is like no other, and to find him or her, frankly, I do not have any problem (generally speaking) with sacrificing my civil liberties. We are at war. I do think it is wishful thinking to assume democracy can win over the hearts and minds of a people that want nothing to do with it (democracy). Moreover, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. For example, Menachem Begin, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, was number one on Interpol’s most wanted list when he died in the early nineties.
Extraordinary but unsurprising.
Is this why you stopped appearing on his show, Prof Turley?
Thank goodness for Bill-O, without him I would have no idea what our capacity for genocide actually is. Can we take out all the Buddhists? How about the Laplanders? Personally, I have never liked those animal worship cults. Can we incinerate them too? It’s good to know that Bill-O is spending time thinking about these things. Maybe he can come up a way to totally decimate terminal stupidity. Glenn Beck, look out!
John,
I see democracy has failed to win over your heart and mind because you will sacrifice it in the US.
John–
You said: “This enemy is like no other, and to find him or her, frankly, I do not have any problem (generally speaking) with sacrificing my civil liberties. We are at war. I do think it is wishful thinking to assume democracy can win over the hearts and minds of a people that want nothing to do with it (democracy).”
****************
One of things I value most about living in a democracy is that we have certain civil liberties that are supposed to be protected by law. You may be willing to sacrifice your civil liberties. I am not.
I remember the wise words of one of our Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”
John,
Or… we could just leave them alone. I mean, not to inject facts into a good rant, but aren’t we the ones that invaded other countries? So, doesn’t that make us the instigators? I mean of the war, which is a word that has a very specific meaning when it comes to the actions of a country.
To Jill,
We have caused the deaths 2 million in Iraq since 1990 (4 presidents), with several million displaced. I don’t have injury numbers.
Call me old fashioned but that qualifies as already-committed genocide
No christian terrorists?
Nobody made mention of Eric Rudolph, did they?
John Puma,
I thought about that also and agree with you.
Bush was a complete nut on the right and Obama is just as bad to the left to bad we can’t find some leaders with the countries best interest at heart
“I do not have any problem (generally speaking) with sacrificing my civil liberties.”
John,
It is so sad that you don’t have a clue about what America and our constitution mean. No one who does would have written that drivel.
Mike:
I may not know as much about the “Constitution” as you know about the “constitution,” but at least I know how to spell it correctly.
John:
why is it people who have sh . . . for brains always worry about someone else’s spelling?
I suppose it is the same lack of imagination which causes people to assume people who curse have a lack of verbal ability, or people who are dis-organized aren’t too bright.
John–
I’m of the opinion that it’s of greater import to stand up for/defend the civil liberties granted us by the Constitution than to know that it begins with a capital C.
Gyges:
Are you familiar with Huntington’s Clash of civilization theory?
Jill:
As a combat veteran, I agree to disagree.
Elaine:
I see your point (generally speaking).
Mike:
I like you.
Byron:
It’s what I didn’t say …
No Christian terrorists? Hmmmmmm. Can you say Jim Jones? I disagree that the term “terrorist” does not apply to mass shootings. Where was the “terror”? Terror is not necessarily the fear of being killed. It CAN be, but real terror usually does not even involve death, blood or killing. It just involves FEAR. That can be done without a gun or a bomb.
No matter how you spell it, giving up your Constitutional rights is a mistake that you may never be able to correct.
Rafflaw:
Indeed, I’m sure several inmates in state and federal prison agree.
these are the choices? kill them or when that doesn’t work get them to love us?
one wonders how this man’s mind works…. or is it that he has enough chutzpah to say what others are thinking?
GWMom,
The only ones thinking what O’Reilly is saying are teabaggers and tenthers and bigots.
Rafflaw:
Not to defend Fox News, but perhaps you might enlighten me as to why democrats, independents, and republicans alike are watching his program?
I’m just asking …
John–
People watch buildings burning, car crashes, cock fights, mud wrestling, reality TV shows, etc.
I’m just saying…
We can’t kill all the Muslims, so we wanna win as many hearts and minds of good moderate Muslims as we can….
What a terribly insane way to grab people’s attention…
Dear Lewis Black, help me off my rage..
Jericho,
Aside from ranting himself to a reasonable state of mental health, I hear Lewis has switched to decaf if that provides any relief.
“Mike:
I may not know as much about the “Constitution” as you know about the “constitution,” but at least I know how to spell it correctly.”
“Mike:
I like you.”
John,
So what’s a little capitalization error among friends?
Mike S.–
In writing “constitution,” you didn’t commit a “capital” offense. As a former teacher, I’d categorize it as a spelling misdemeanor.
John,
Not especially, but let me take a stab at it: It’s basically cold war rhetoric with the specifics changed from “Communism” to “Islam?” Heck I’d be willing to bet that it’s pretty close to the rhetoric Charlemagne used to justify the expansion of his holy empire.
Every foe anyone’s ever fought has been a foe like no other. They have to be, because last century’s foe is this decade’s trade partner. “Sure the English were bad, but they’re nothing compared to the SPANISH.” “Sure the Spanish were but at least they’re Christians, unlike these Indians.” Muslim just happens to be the evil ‘other’ de jour.
People who are willing to give up civil liberties in pursuit of the hope for security sicken me. They remind me of those cold warriors who said the same of the communists. Do they really think that freedom and democracy make a society so weak that it’s incapable of standing up to threats? Are America and liberal democracy so weak that they cannot survive in the real world?
I have to keep asking who really hates America, those who believe in its potential to win without sacrificing its core principles or those who preach that we’re too weak to win without becoming that which we purportedly hate in our enemies?
“Every foe anyone’s ever fought has been a foe like no other.”
Gyges,
So wisely true and so unfathomable by those who respond to authoritarian personalities. Best musical statement in my opinion:
Mike:
Nothing at all!
Elaine:
Spelling misdemeanor …
Gyges:
Ok …
John,
I appologize, I skipped a few steps in my thinking for the sake of brevity. Here’s the long form:
Working on the assumption that The Clash of Civilizations theory was basically “the West has irreconcilable difference with Islam.” Which it appears is not the whole story, but fairly close to some of the premises, and the ones most relevant to the discussion.
That’s the same general idea as much of the rhetoric surrounding the Cold War, but substituting Islam for Communism. To expand on that idea I put forth the theory that ALL wars are because of what are seen at the time as “irreconcilable differences.” After all, who’s going to go to war over something they think will get worked out eventually (other than the relatively recent class of leaders who wouldn’t actually be involved)?
Another part of the rhetoric involved in wars is that the enemy is always the worst ever faced, or as you put it “This enemy is like no other.” (I used foe instead of enemy, because I like the word better).
All this is in rebuttal to the your original comment is that since that this enemy is unique in history so we need to give up civil liberties to fight them.
Gyges:
Don’t apologize … I just happen to believe that it is ok to sacrifice our civil liberties for the greater good (generally speaking). Truth-be-told, I fear the police more than I fear the CIA.