O’Reilly: “We Can’t Kill All Of The Muslims So We Wanna Win As Many Hearts and Minds” As Possible

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.

61 thoughts on “O’Reilly: “We Can’t Kill All Of The Muslims So We Wanna Win As Many Hearts and Minds” As Possible”

  1. 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.

  2. “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:

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. Mike S.–

    In writing “constitution,” you didn’t commit a “capital” offense. As a former teacher, I’d categorize it as a spelling misdemeanor.

  6. “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?

  7. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    Jericho,

    Aside from ranting himself to a reasonable state of mental health, I hear Lewis has switched to decaf if that provides any relief.

  8. 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..

  9. 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 …

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

Comments are closed.