O'Reilly: Sunni and Shiite Iraqis "have fun" when they "kill each other"
Discussing Iraq during the January 24 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that "the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. ... They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do." O'Reilly then asserted that the "essential mistake of the war" was failing to anticipate that "these people would act like savages, and they are." Later, O'Reilly said that he had not predicted that the Iraqis "were going to act like savages in the aftermath of Saddam [Hussein]," and added: "[N]ow, Iran, we know they're savages." As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), O'Reilly has repeatedly stated his indifference to the deaths of Iraqis and the fate of their country. Recently, O'Reilly claimed that Iraq is not in "civil war," but rather that Muslims are just "doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."
From the January 24 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: That's what they want to do in Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, unlike Kuwait. All right. There are Muslims there, too. Unlike the Kurds in the north -- they're Muslims too -- the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do.
All right. So, now we're standing there, going, "Where did this -- how did this happen?" That's the essential mistake of the war. That we didn't think these people would act like savages, and they are.
[...]
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, look, I think [Rep. Anthony] Weiner [D-NY] had a good point. Those of us who really understand the world -- and believe me, I made a mistake with Iraq, too. I did not think the Iraqi people were going to act like savages in the aftermath of Saddam. I had -- you know, I said, "Look, the Afghanis are cooperating. The Kuwaitis cooperated with us." And I didn't think they would.
But, now, Iran, we know they're savages. But it's interesting to see how the left is positioning. If you read the LA Times this week, "Oh, they're not so bad over there." Oh, no, they deny the Holocaust. "Ah, it's not -- " They want to kill Israel? "Ah, you know." They want to get a nuke. "Ah, you know." That's how the left is positioned. "Not so bad." You know, "We're overhyping the danger."
And I'm saying to myself, "Even if we are overhyping the danger, these people look to me to be Nazis." You know, that's exactly what they said about Hitler in the 1930s. "Ah, he's not that bad. He's just bluster. He's just a bluster guy." Oh, man. Said that about Mao, said it about Stalin. "We can work with Stalin. Yeah, he's not so bad."
O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, look, I think [Rep. Anthony] Weiner [D-NY] had a good point. Those of us who really understand the world -- and believe me, I made a mistake with Iraq, too.
Wrong, right, O'Reilly you don't understand the world, but yes you were wrong and continue to be wrong on most everything. MM comes up with a classic once again.
O'Reilly believes in Allah?
"the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do"
and where is the dishonesty?
"They have fun"? "They like this"? What basis does O'Reilly have for saying that? Also, I don't think "Allah" ordered them to kill each other.
As O'Reilly's blatherings go, this is pretty small stuff. I think it's probably here as an example of his continuing effort to over-simplify the situation in Iraq by painting Iraqis (and now, apparently, Iranians) as nothing more than "savages."
It is all about Allah for them.
Right, but I don't think the Quran has anything about Allah telling the Sunnis and Shiites to kill each other.
(Not to mention that there's no more reason to believe Allah exists than there is to believe in Santa Claus.)
lots of these folk don't read so well. but the guy in charge sure can...just ask him. so, it's kind of like he says what allah thinks...don't forget that. think The Church 200 years before martin luther showed up and got tossed out...chicken bones a-way
Oh Rusty Rusty.
I know how you feel and of course that's you right, but I believe in the existense of God. But Allah simply means God, Muslims are referring to the same God that is referred to in the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
That's cool. I also believe that, from a scriptural standpoint, Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same deity. And of course there's no way to prove or disprove its existence (that's why I'm an agnostic myself).
That's why I get nervous when people start doing what they think God told them to - people like our prez.I agree with you totally Rusty. I get so tired of these people pulling God into these decisions that they make on their own. God didn't tell Bush to go to Iraq, no more than he told Pat Robertson that 2006 would be a good year for the stock market.
LOLOL... nice one Rusty
Actually Allah has nothing to do with it at all.
This is a feud. It is a conflict between to seperate tribes (or groups), each believing they are right. It goes back centuries (thanks History Channel special). Although religion is often tied into it, it is more about hating another group of people, just because you hate them.
I find it endlessly amusing, though quite tiring, how EvilLib fails to offer any coherent arguments or manages to string together rational sentences, but only offers childish and silly questions or statements that seem little more than non-sequiturs.
Evil,
You do know that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God correct? It's all about God for a lot of people, maybe not you I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
A while back, somebody here wondered if the use of the word "Allah" in the media was a conscious effort to distinguish "our God" from "their God." The poster pointed out that nobody in the U.S. media would ever write that Jacques Chirac worships Dieu or Felipe Calderon worships Dios (assuming thier religions were newsworthy).
Yes Lynn I do. Dont you always here them say, "In the name of Allah"?
Really? Then we are over there killing them for WHAT again? Jesus? Oil. Are we having fun killing them? Or do baseless smears like this only apply to THEM, that is anyone not like O'falafel
The dishonesty is that O'Reilly thinks that anyone who disagrees with the Iraq War policy is a defeatist and in favor of surrendering.
So for him to say that the Iraqi's have fun killing each other while we're there trying to bring them freedom (or whatever todays excuse for this quagmire is) is hypocritical.
If he beleives that they all only want to kill each other, he's in favor of Americans dying for nothing.
ok, I understand what you are saying.
See... that's way too complex a thought process for the FOX crowd. Which, is why it's often so easy to catch them in some form of incongruent logic. "You're either with us or against us!" But, as you point out... it ain't so easy. And, Dumb-bill over there can't even keep his blather straight.
Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do"
-------------------------------------------------------------
If, as a people, they enjoy torture and killing so much, why was it necessary to spend incalculable $$$ dollars and sacrifice thousands of lives to liberate them from joy.
Lucky for O'Reilly that in a white racist society, any idiot with a melanin deficiency and a tiny wee wee can make a good living.
Bush wants to kill everyone. He wants to blow everyone up. He wants to torture. He has fun. This is--he likes this. This is what God tells him to do, and that's what he does.
Bush: not so different from those "fun-seeking" Sunnis and Shiites.
Clams, you beat me to it. By O'reilly's logic, The Americans must "really like this" as well. We started this fight, have killed thousands. And it looks like we will continue to do so. To achieve "victory' in this war means we will have to kill alot more.
Admittedly this war has been grossly mismanaged and a strategic mess, from the Commander in Chief on down. But to compare our troops, or any American, to the innocent and indiscriminate slaughter perpetrated by these murderers is flat out ridiculous.
Raises a point though...
And, I'm not trying to snarky here. Forget about the troops or Americans... personally, I don't think either enjoys any of this. What about the 'administration'? At what point do they take responsibility for the enumerable lives lost? How complicit in this madness is Bush and his cabinet? Prob too far off-topic. But, I think it's good question.
Great Question and I only hope that this administration is held accountable for the deaths and the destruction it has caused , long after they are gone.
Any Commander in Chief that sends our citizens to war, and every live that is lost as a result, bears responsibility for that. This president should be no different.
Doris: ideally, the administration will be held accountable BEFORE it's members are gone.
A while back I heard at least one of the administration's waterboys (Neal Boortz) tried to pin the failure of Iraq on liberals. The argument is that since liberals largely did not suppor the Iraq war and constantly protested it, that caused a fracture to develop amongst the American people.
No acknowledgement by Boortz whatsoever of the administration's foolhardiness and/or lack of comprehension how their own failures have contributed greatly to the public's growing distrust.
This will happen again. The conservatives conveniently blame Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite (along with the rest of the "librul media") for the failure of Vietnam. They will do the same again. Never really accepting responsibility for the consequences of their overall lack of wisdom, they just obligatorially(is that a word?) blame the mephistophelean leftist boogeyman.
"The American left, including the liberal media, are so eager for failure in Iraq that they are turning into parodies of their Vietnam-era selves.
Could that be possible? Maybe so!" link: Neal Boortz [link to boortz.com] utterly shallow and transparent logic.
I don't usually comment on spelling in comment threads, but when a misspelling actually makes a difference to the meaning I sometimes make an exception:
enumerable: that can be counted
innumerable: that cannot be counted
Heh-heh... I was busted on that one before. Thanks for keeping me honest.
Tommy, note that Areebo said by O'Reilly's logic.
Rusty, I know, but he also said we started this war and will have to kill many more to win.......that was his extrapolation, even O'Reilly's comments wouldn't lead me to that conclusion.
Since we are talking about Iraq we did start this war, that cannot be disputed reasonably. WE invaded Iraq, they didnt attack us.
Too bad white America didn't listen to black America. Black America was against this war from the very beginning, not just the way it was managed, but its very declaration.
For cons who need a plan: Thanks to Bu$h, there is only one plan available now, the damage is done. Read my lips: Withdraw immediately.
Hey buddy, when I was protesting against this war BEFORE it even started I was in a crowd of mostly white people in a major American city. I didn't see Condi Rice there.
"We do what we are told to do. This is war."
So tell me, this would be the mantra of... who's soldiers?
Sure, there are no was atrocities. Nobody from either side gets scared enough to kill some innocent bystander. Never happens, right? Or is it the enemy who does this, but not our own?
Nobody (but Fox-thinkers) believe that our troops are the problem. It is hard to be a hero when you are fighting a was waged by a complete moron.
I am not sure I understand the point you are making? Of course there are deaths, accidental deaths in war - innocent people lose their lives, sadly. But our intent is not to slaughter them on purpose......that is a significant and major difference that is obvious to anyone.
"But our intent is not to slaughter them on purpose......"
That is certainly true of the vast majority of us. But Tommy, can you say without any doubt that that is true of every single American, every single administration official?
I'm not saying that slaughter as an end in itself is the intent. But since we haven't heard a reasonable or justifiable intent yet, the slaughter could easily be a means to an end we haven't been told yet.
Now, before ya'all slam me as being a conspiricy nut-case, let me say that I don't believe this admin, nor the neocons are smart enough to plan that far ahead. 600K plus of "collatoral" victims is most likely just the result of their collosal blunder.
Rocky,
If there was any evidence that any member, or official, of this, or any administration, purposefully intended or advocated the slaughter of innocent civilians indiscriminately, I would want them held 100% accountable and punished.
Tommy, would that include President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall for their decision to use nuclear weapons?
No, I specifically said purposefully intended or advocated.......that does not include unintended casualties of war.
I think Truman knew that a lot of civilians were going to die when those bombs fell. The cost/benefit of dropping the bombs can be debated, but I don't think you can argue that we didn't intentionally target civilians.
Rusty,
In my view, dropping the bomb ended the war much earlier than it would have, thereby sparing many more lives from being lost. I agree that dropping bombs is and was debatable, but the entire cost/benefits in context need to be evaluated. And in this case, Truman did what he had to do, in my opinion.
Yes, I acknowledged that whether it was worth it is debatable.
What ISN'T debatable is that the U.S. deliberately targeted civilians. That was my only point.
And my point originally was indiscriminately.
You've got a point there. We did limit it to only the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Rusty,
I appreciate your sarcasm, it is actually funny. And I hear what you're saying, dropping the bomb is and always was controversial.......but I believe it was the right thing to do and sent the message that needed to be sent to end the war at that time. But there is no comparison to what insurgents and murderers within Iraq do on a daily basis today. There wasn't even anything resembling that 60 years ago from any enemy.
Tommy, do you think that dropping a nuke on a ship or within the vicinity of a fleet wouldn't have ended the war just as quickly? That would have avoided civilian deaths. Now that may or may not have ended it as quickly, we'll never know. My point was that the civilian deaths were not necessary. Soo, should the person or persons that chose the target have been charged?
Let's not forget the 67(?) Japanese cities that were firebombed.What exactly were we targeting there?
Terrorists. Duh.
Here's the deal. The folks that started all this mess have never been poor, never been shot and never have had an occupation in their home town. Any person who has ever been to war, been shot at and had to suffer through an occupation knows how nasty it is. I am sick and tired of reading and listening to people who do not have one iota of experience in matters like this. Look at what has happened. All the architects of this war on terror have never been in a war! As a matter of fact, they all found ways to get out of serving. And now there's an executive order to shoot and kill Iranians on Iraqi soil bringing more escalation to an already bad situation? These nuts have all lost their minds and the people who support them. How are you going to win the hearts and minds of people that view you as an occupying power over there and a destructive, disobedient headcase over here. We the people have spoken and said that we do not want this, that this was a big mistake, and that it has got to stop. The Iraqis are saying no more troops, the generals are saying no more troops, the world is saying stop.
This is what I want to happen. This new Congress has got to put a halt to all of this, for the good of the nation and the good of the world. If the Democrats do not rise up and do the right thing, and do it soon, they will get kicked out. I am fed up now with all the sweet talk and niceties of bipartisanship. I want action! We have paid enough for the sins of madmen. It's time to nip this sucker in the bud and bring the troublemakers to justice! And I want all the people in the media that have played along with the program to get off the air and go away because they are just as bad. You made your money, you got what you want, now get out. We need a break from the insanity. All of the nut jobs with the money that has been generated from this war need to find an island somewhere and fight amongst themselves for a while and leave us sane people alone.
Not good enough. There was no rational justification for starting this war and we target civilians. When we bomb civilian neighborhoods, that is innocents dying. Now you can argue that is how war is done and its an unaviodable cost but its still killing innocents, knowing innocents WILL be killed. Remember shock and awe? Is there anyone in the world who believed that was NOT killing civilians? No you brush this off as innocent much too easily. IF the war itself was justifyable that would be one thing but it isnt.
Bush is a war criminal. He and his cronies, Rummy and Trick Cheney (aka Dead Eye Dick) concocted lies to justify a declaration of war that costs hundreds of thousands their lives. Everybody knows it. Its special prosecutor time.
The party's over cons.
But it's not a comparison between U.S. troops and Islamic extremists. What if we were to take O'Reilly's statement and replace Sunni and Shia with the word "American." I used Bush mainly to point out that he has repeatedly insisted that he takes direction from God. But if we use the word "American" instead, then the comparison points out O'Reilly's gross generalization of Sunnis and Shiites. Civil wars have been taking place between those two Islamic factions for centuries, but not every Sunni is a Taliban or Al Quaeda, and not every Shia is a bloodthirsty extremist. Not every Sunni and Shiite is a soldier in Iraq's civil war, just as every American isn't a soldier (or even a supporter) of Bush's War on Terror. O'Reilly simplistic and ignorant generalizations are pure propaganda.
I never said I agreed with O'Reilly's language or his terminology. So your point is misdirected.
I never said you agreed with O'Reilly's logic either, but you're the on who chose to take issue with Areebo's statement, so my point about blanket generalizations isn't misdirected at all. You wrote, "But to compare our troops, or any American, to the innocent and indiscriminate slaughter perpetrated by these murderers is flat out ridiculous."
Nobody made that comparison. And my point was a direct response to that. If you choose not to address that, then don't respond at all. But don't try and tell me that I'm misdirecting my point.
I will respond to the original poster who made the statement prior to my response, if he or she chooses to elaborate or clarify it's meaning.
Discussing it with you is pointless for obvious reasons.
It's not necessary for Areebo to elaborate or clarify anything. His/her point was clearly made--just as clear as your intentional(?) twisting of it. If anything needs clarification it's your suspect generalizations about our troops or "any Americans" being compared to "these murderers." You say you don't subscribe to O'Reilly's logic and terminology, but if by "these murderers" you mean Sunnis and Shiites, then how are your generalizations any different than his?
One more time so even you get it. Unless you post under the name Areebo, my discussing his post for clarification with you is purely so you can provoke an argument with me. No clarification needed here.
If he chooses to engage a dialogue, I will do so, if possible.
Really Clams, can't you find other playthings?
Interesting that you keep taking the time to respond to my posts, but you repeatedly refuse to answer my questions or address the point. And just in case you weren't aware, this is a public forum and not a private conversation between you and Areebo. Anyone is allowed to respond and comment on anyone else's posts. Again, if you want to dodge the question, then don't respond. Posting excuses about how you can only respond to Areebo is both transparent and childish. If you don't want to have your statements challenged, then please stop posting.
Perhaps, as it's already been explained to you, it's because you are trying to tell me what Areebo "meant" in his post. And your interpretation of his post is meaningless to me - so if he cares to elaborate on his post's meaning, fine, otherwise, you offer nothing. To argue your interpretation of his post, as it's already been explained to you, is pointless. Are you getting any of this?, 'cause it ain't hard.
Your incessant argumentativeness has reached new heights. Since your failure to win previous arguments has you all atwitter, you now attempt to interpret, with no authority, someone else's post and argue that.
It's all very entertaining actually, I guess that's why I keep responding just to see how desperate you get to "win" an argument. I wait to see what's next.
Wow, if this weren't so pathetic it'd be funny. I almost want to keep this up just to see how long you'll keep responding by saying "I'm not responding to you." I'm not "interpreting" Areebo's post at all. In fact, if you look back, Areebo began his post by writing, "Clams, you beat me to it." We were making the same point and saying essentially the same thing. No "interpretation" necessary. So I'm perfectly entitled to challenge your own misinterpretation of Areebo's post, just as you're perfectly entitled to dodge that challenge by not responding to me. But something tells me that you won't be able to resist yet another post telling me why you're not responding to me.
"Your incessant argumentativeness has reached new heights. "
Sorry. I just wanted to see that line one more time.
was that tommy
looking in the mirror?
Well, I'll disagree with part of that. I don't think Areebo's intent was to compare our military, in general, to O'Reilly's characterization of Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. However, he was clearly drawing an analogy to some Americans, specifically the Administration and others, including some military personnel, who are complicit in continuing our involvement.
Tommy, why not draw analogies to Americans to evaluate O'Reilly's statements? Are we really so much better than others and our motives so pure as to be beyond any comparison? The holier-than-though attitude that says we are is dangerous. It's an ingredient of probably every war.
And it's also worth considering the filter through which the rest of the world sees us. We can point out how much better we are than "them" all we want, but much o, "black sites" and Guantanamo.
I can't get it right even with the preview function. I meant to write that much of the rest of the world looks at America or our troops and only sees Haditha, Abu Graib, "black sites" and Guantanamo.
Chris,
As pointed out to another poster, if and when Areebo clarifies his or her post and he or she points out where I misinterpreted it in some way - it is pointless for a third party to discuss my response to that particular post.
Tommy, unlike my comment to Clams, my point to you doesn't hinge on your interpretation of Areebo's post being correct or not. Try again.
In fact, my unanswered questions to Tommy also don't hinge on whether or not his interpretation of Areebo's post is correct. As I said before, it's a transparent and childish dodge. He doesn't want to face the questions so he hides behind the idea that he can only respond to Areebo.
By the way, I realize the format of this forum doesn't make it easy to determine to whom a particular post was responding. To clarify, the first paragraph of my earlier post was written in response to a post by Clams. It does discuss Arrebo's post, which is why I didn't address it to you.
The second paragraph, however, was a side point to you. Areebo's intent is irrelevant to my point therein.
Chris,
Thanks for clarifying your post. As for your question about analogies, in this case, in my opinion, there is no analogy. Of course we make mistakes in every war and are far from perfect.......but there is no analogy concerning our goals, intentions and tactics to those whose intent is to terrorize, instill fear and slaughter innocent people for political or religious reasons. That was my point originally and I am glad to repeat it again if it wasn't clear.
"but there is no analogy concerning our goals, intentions and tactics to those whose intent is to terrorize, instill fear and slaughter innocent people for political or religious reasons. "
Oh? Then what was that "shock and awe" stuff about?
But I'm with you to a degree. I don't hold our soldiers directly accountable for the actions of this administration. And I don't think this administration purposely slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Instead, I think this administration was simply indifferent to their plight.
Of course we make mistakes in every war and are far from perfect
Yeah, but? Bush has used similar statements - "mistakes have been made" etc. - in discussing Iraq. It strikes me as an empty comment designed to dismiss criticism while avoiding serious evaluation and action.
there is no analogy concerning our goals, intentions and tactics
Black...
to those whose intent is to terrorize, instill fear and slaughter innocent people for political or religious reasons.
...and White...or White and Black, if you prefer. Describing our intentions as so pure and that of Sunni/Shiite rivals as so evil is exactly the dangerous mindset to which I was referring earlier.
You mean like Falluja? Or those many incidents of Marines killing women and children? Or executing unarmed prisoners? Or blowing up weddings and then lying about it? Or shelling medical facilities against the Geneva Conventions? Or torturing prisoners?
Yeah, how dare we compare those moral upright wonderful American troops to the lowly subhuman inferior Iraqis! Seig heil!
Having fun?
Wrong choice of words Bill, BUT I say let's pull our troops out and let the LUNATICS [rather than Bill's term savages] fight it out. Let them have their Civil war. If that sounds cold-hearted, well sorry.
The really sad thing here is that as BAD as Saddam was [and he was] at least he kept the LUNATICS under control.
Jeter,
I believe that's what is going to transpire anyway. They are going to have their civil war, and then maybe eventually they can split or reconcile or do what ever it is they are going to do.
Hey Lynn,
I think it was Joe Biden [someone correct me if I'm wrong] who said he'd be in favor of 3 separate autonomous regions. I agree with that idea [no matter who said it]. I believe the Kurds especially deserve their independence.
BTW, off-topic here--But I like Biden, and wonder what you think his chances are of winning the Democratic nomination? I figure he's a long shot...BUT I'd consider voting for him IF he he made it on to the ballot :-)
You might wanna read up on that idea.
The Shia aren't gonna just vacate Baghdad -- it's about a 50-50 mix with the Sunnis. And as I recall, there's not much in the way of oil in the central part of the country where Baghdad is, so the Sunnis would have little source of income compared to the Kurds in the north or the Shia in the south. Further, Iran is primarly Shia, and their influence will grow considerably if we just get out of the way. That's the exact opposite of what was undoubtedly the unspoken primary goal in this whole mess.
And finally, Turkey isn't going to stand idly by as the Kurds declare their independence (which they're gonna do anyway in about five years because the constitution they negotiated gives them that right.) Turkey has said they will not allow an independent Kurdistan. Turkey has a large population of Kurds in its southern regions and feels that a bordering Kurdistan would result in those areas trying to secede.
I certainly don't have the answer, and part of me does feel that just getting our troops out of the line of fire is the way to go. (Perhaps pull them out to Kuwait.) But what's clear is that Bush blew it. He refused to negotiate with certain neighboring countries to get a solution years back. He hastily invaded and had no plans for the occupation. And he had no just cause. I know someone will say "Well, we need to look forward now." But I want Bush held accountable for what will ultimate probably be about a million deaths and decades of war.
Marv,
I understand that the obstacles in such an idea might be insurmountable. BUT it's worth considering. Obviously the oil revenue would have to be shared.
The least of my concerns is the Turks. It's personal...my wife is Armenian & there's no love lost between those two peoples. Turkey sits on real estate that has always been prime--strategic-wise. You know what they say--location! location! location! So the US would probably block a free Kurdish nation.
I'm reading Hubris [Michael Isikoff-David Corn] which just confirms what I already knew/suspected. Bush rushed us into a needless war.
Jeter,
Biden was the first person I heard propose the creation of federation of three autonmous areas that would equally share the proceeds from Iraqi oil revenues. That's the best idea I've heard yet. I like Biden very much, but I have a problem with his complicity in allowing the credit card industry to write the bankruptcy reform legislation. I know why he did it, Delaware is becoming an epi center for that industry and it's brought jobs to his home state. There are several large credit card companies based there now. I don't know how familiar you are with that legislation, but it is grossly unfair to the average consumer in my opinion. Now don't get me wrong I pay my bills and have good credit so it doesn't effect me directly.
I like several of the Dem candidates and I'll admit I've got a little crush on Obama, but of course I wouldn't pick a candidate because he's cute. I think this time it's a pretty good field for the Dems and I'm paying close attention, but of course it's much too soon to be decided on one. I must admit I have a bone to pick with Hiliary Clinton on some things as well, but of course I'll weigh the good things I like about the candidates with the things I don't like about them. You know who I really like? Jim Webb.
What do you think about the Republican choices. I like Hagel he seems like decent fellow, but he has a pretty high rating from the American conservative union. Well at least he's not neo-con crazy like Bush and Cheney. (smile)
Ah Lynn you sound like my wife. She has a crush on Obama as well! I got to admit the guy has that certain "IT" that JFK had and Bill Clinton comes close to having.
I didn't know about Biden and the credit card legislation. That certainly gives me something to consider. The only reason I'd vote for Hillary would be to see Bill back in the White House.
I like Jim Webb also, his response to the SOTU was powerful.
As far as the Republicans go, Hagel is really the only one I'd consider at this point, unfortunately I think he's a real long shot.
Jeter,
I like Hagel, too on the Republican side, but he is constantly being trashed by the conservative pundits. I just heard Hannity lay into him today.
He would definitely be a longshot without the support of the windbag brigade.
>>the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do.<<
If Mr. Bill really believes this, how can he possibly defend the loss of even one more American in Iraq?
Precisely. How can we bring order in the midst of "savages" fighting each other? This is generally how our government views war: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed118.html
Oh, joining in the fun are the Iranians, lets invite the entire region for a never ending bloodbath Bill-O.
"We know the Iranians are savages?" Can you belittle a whole group of people more precisely in one sentence? Isn't there a large group of Iranians who object to the current Iranian government? Isn't there a whole group of Iranians who want to topple that government, a group that our government is covertly helping? Seems I've read that from more than one source in the MSM. This O'Reilly guy truly is an a--. And a shameless one at that.
I know and work with several Iranians. All of them don't like the current government in Iran. They are intelligent professionals and engineers. They don't resemble savages at all. BO is full of crap.
O'Reilly was saying that the people engaged in the civil war are savages, not the Iraqi people as a whole. Though he should have chosen his words more carefully, MMFA is taking this out of context, as usual.
Out of context? How in the world can you say that his words were taken out of context? What was omitted? Did O'Reilly say something that MMFA failed to report? Something that explained these comments in a context that didn't make them sound like ignorant generalizations?
Clams,
The MISSING word/words are Extremists, or Insurgents or Militias.
However, those words aren't always used/included when others [besides O'Reilly] are discussing the Civil War between the Sunni and Shiite. It usually goes without saying, because it's obvious to the listener that it is the Extremists, Insurgents or Militias of those groups--NOT the general population.
It's sort of like saying Republicans or Conservatives, when you probably MEAN Neocons or Far-Right, or Right-Wing Extremists;-)
Thanks Jeter, It was obvious to most people but your clarification for those less coherent is appreciated.
No problem Tommy
When O'Reilly speaks of "Sunni and Shiite Iraqis", he obviously means the EXTREMISTS... He does not mean ALL Iraqis. I would think that would be obvious to even the most rabid O'Reilly Haters.
The parsing & minutia practised by some here gives me a headache ;-)
So when O'Reilly said "I did not think the Iraqi people [not extremists, not militia - PEOPLE] were going to act like savages in the aftermath of Saddam" it was just a - botched joke?
Man, if John Kerry had said it we'd all be hearing "but that's not what he SAID" from the likes of Wesley and AA. It's good to see that some of you conservatives aren't quite that literal.
No, in that case he probably did mean the population in general. At least that's how I read it. Don't forget that long before the Civil War took shape there were recurring bombings, shootings & looting. These incidents were NOT [if memory serves me right] being carried out by organized groups--but rather by many in the general population.
Of course it's escalated into Civil War...but the violence continues even among many NOT involved in any militia, or insurgency or extremists group.
Using "Iraqi people" may appear TOO general. Perhaps O'Reilly should have INCLUDED the word SOME.
You know like SOME Republicans are evil ;-)
Interesting conjecture, though I'm not sure I agree that's what O'Reilly meant. Probably moot, so I'll move on...
Your comments seems to be based on a characterization of the Sunni/Shiite conflict as being perpetrated by an "extreme" minority. If so, it would seem to be a dubious assertion at this point.
Never mind...you addressed this at 5:48, but I hadn't refreshed the page.
How do you differ a terrorist and a extreemest? Or are they the same? I think O using the word Iraqui's is justified. I am not sure the ones blowing themselves up are all extreemest. Are you sure? I am wondering if it is par for the coarse. I google "muslim violence" ect every day. And sure enough, I find more links than I can read in a day.
You can google "American violence" and get examples everyday as well. What's your point? And, yes, somebody who blows themselves up is by definition an extremist.
My point? It seems to be par for the course for Muslims to bring violence. This is a different kind of violence. Not the kind you find in mentaly ill people or similar.
And yes you can find American Violence in a google search as well. Wana compare findings? You seach American, I search Muslim. I bet I can make you look like plain silly.
I think it is par for the course for the simpleminded to generalize like saying something as dumb as it is par for the course for Muslims to commit violence. I guess it is par for the course for conservatives to say dumb things.
"The MISSING word/words are Extremists, or Insurgents or Militias."
Then those are words ommitted by O'Reilly, not Media Matters, so the charge that he was taken out of context is baseless. And of course the second most common defense of O'Reilly is to say, "He should have been more careful in his phrasing, but what he meant to say was..."
Clams I NEVER implied that MMFA had taken anything out of context.
I was simply giving you the MISSING WORDS.
Nor was I giving O'Reilly an out. Just explaining what he probably should have said.
I know it wasn't you who said MMFA took his words out of context. I didn't mean to imply it was.
No problem.
I guess these "conversations" would be less confusing if we were sitting across from each other talking instead of typing ;-)
Not good enough since he DID specify. He didnt just say those in the civil war he said Sunnis and Shiites. The statement WASNT taken out of context since he didnt say the word extremist. IF he meant extremist he should have SAID extremist. Here is a bit of context. There are lots of far right extremists trying to foment a Holy War against Islam. IF O'Reilly didnt WANT to give them ammunition during while doing the job he is extremly well paid for he shouldnt have. You guys dont get to pretend you read his mind and put something in there he didnt say and then claim that is what he really meant.
"But Iran, we know they're savages." That's like some mullah saying "The Americans are the devil." It's pure and simple inflammatory garbage, meant to engender hate of your enemy.
No, O'Reilly did not say the people involved in the civil war were savages. He said, "But, now, Iran, we know they're savages."
He called the people of Iran savages. His statement was not taken out of the context, which the is most pathetic argument and first line of defense of bloviators everywhere. Indeed, I am reminded of Conrad's Heart of Darkness when I hear this type of speech. "Exterminate all the brutes," said Kurtz. Is O'Reilly really very different in his meaning?
Colvert, you have a solid point about Iran...you will get no argument from me about that.
But yes, people who kill babies and blow up holy shrines to provoke violence are brutes who should be exterminated.
All the people of Iran?
To whom are you posing that question Rusty?
To you, IO. Do you think all the people of Iran are savages?
Nope. Thanks for the question.
Cool.
Really? Because I am not that far off such thinking, cant get to exterminate, but certainly punished and held responsible. On that topic what about Raygun and Casey setting off a carbomb in Beiruit in the 80's set to go off in front of a Mosque just as it was letting out. Killing babies in their cribs in the houses on the street by the way. Do you include THEM in this urge to exterminate? It killed 80 outright and badly injured more than 200 William Casey admitted we did this in 83 and he wrote about it in one of his books
Who's "Raygun?" If you're referring to former President Reagan, which I hope you are not, how about trying a little more respect for someone far more accomplished and dignified than you will ever be. And if you have evidence that he set off a car-bomb, as you wrote, then produce it.
Have you ever heard of "libel" Solon? I would be very careful if I were you, in general.
I just checked and Casey is dead so what you said can't be libel. But it would have been libel IF they were alive and IF you were important enough for your words to have any effect on them. Therefore, I take back my "I would be careful if I were you" statement because I see that you already are.
Yes I am talking about Raygun and its more respect than he deserves. I am not worried about libel since this is published and well known information as I said William Casey admitted the CIA did it in one of his books I could cite the Newspaper article it came out in but my wife has all my reference books put up as we are remodelling. This is a well known FACT. That is on Planet Earth. Planet Wingnut, not so much.
Cite one source then, just one--you can link it, or not I don't care, that states that Reagan and Caesy set off a car bomb, as you just stated. You identified two people, specifically, by name, that SET OFF a car bomb--those are your words, not mine--so produce the evidence.
Although Casey admitted hiring others to carry out the attack, the attempt was to assassinate a sworn enemy of the US, not to murder innocent civilians, although the effect of it was to do the same. Only someone living on wing-nut planet can equate that with what the Islamist terrorists are consistently doing in Iraq and other places across the Middle East and Asia, which is deliberately targeting innocent civilians for brutal acts of terrorism.
No one would accept that ludicrous excuse from anyone else. We set off the car bomb timed just as the Mosque was letting out. There wasnt any doubt dozens of innocent people would be killed, of course we didnt GET the guy we were after. We also would not accept saying the president and head of the intelligence werent responsible for what any terrorism carried out by their countries intelligence arm. I never said Raygun and Casey did it personally, that doesnt mitigate their responsibility. So, do you think Saddam PERSONALY dropped poison gas on the Kurds? Does that exculpate him? Or does that ONLY work for Conservative presidents and heads of the CIA? your arguments are pathetic. YOU said those who kill innocents deserve to be eradicated Raygun and Casey fit that bill by any reasonable standard. Do you want to start up an other flame war?I am up for it if thats what you want. Your ignorance and provacative stupidity are annoyng me. So lets go. Or you might admit that what you REALLY meant is when OFFICIAL ENEMIES kill innocents they should be eradicated and when WE do it, its completely justified as blowhard terrorist facilitators like Raygun are on the side of the Angels no matter WHO they kill as long as they are conservatives there is NO attrocity that they can commit you wont appologize for. You may as well admit it, its clear to all of us who unlike say YOU have a functioning cerebral cortex
Actually you're right I don't have a functioning cerebral cortex. I usually hire someone to blog for me on this site but she was away last night so I tried it out a little. When she wakes up I'm sure she'll come up with a brilliant response to what you just wrote. OK, she just woke up so here it goes:
When did I ever imply that personal responsibility is mitigated when the person does not physically commit the atrocity? What I said was do you have evidence that Casey planted the bomb set to go off as a Mosque was letting out. You then provided it: you wrote that Casey admitted in his book to setting off the bomb as a Mosque was letting out and I took your word for it and so I wrote "Although Casey admitted hiring others to carry out the attack..." Well I took your word for it, and that re-confirms a valuable lesson that I should have known: never take anything for granted. In fact, that is false: Casey, nor the CIA, have ever admitted the specific attack in question. They have admitted to contracting with the group that carried out the attack but the official response has been that it was a runaway mission. In fact, from the very Woodward and Babcock article you cited:
"Late last year, President Reagan approved a covert operation directing the Central Intelligence Agency to train and support several counterterrorist units for strikes against suspected terrorists before they could attack U.S. facilities in the Middle East, according to informed sources. About four months later, members of one of those units, composed of Lebanese intelligence personnel and other foreigners, acting without CIA authorization, (Italics mine) went out on a runaway mission and hired others in Lebanon to detonate a massive car bomb outside the Beirut residence of a militant Shiite leader believed to be behind terrorist attacks on U.S. installations, the sources said."
So no, Casey has not admitted to hiring others to carry out the attack in question, as I erroneously stated, acting on the information you gave me without double checking (a big mistake on my part). Until you have official evidence that Casey and Reagan admitted to actually planning and implementing the attack, I suggest that you not imply that they did.
By "official evidence" I don't mean to imply government publications. Major newspapers/journals/books, whatever.
I dont understand your point. Did they plan it in the CIA and then have it carried out exactly as it happened? We wont know for sure but I doubt it. How does this change the culpability? The legal definition of murder includes any death in the carrying out of a felony. We contracted with the same bloody terrorists who had been turning Beiruit from the Jewel of the middle east into Dantes fifth circle of Hell. Its not like a responsible and trusted Seal team made a mistake. When we do that WE become responsible for what they do. How can we claim anything else? This is the way they always operated. Casey and Raygun cannot hire Billy the Kid to rob a bank then say wow. We are so sorry he shot somebody, who knew? We were well aware of how that group worked. This wasnt out of line for what they did just a bit more successful by their standards so we canno NOW claim innocence because we called it a RUNAWAY MISSION. What did we THINK they were going to do, show restraint for the first time? No, that isnt a good enough excuse. I know the details of how this went down. I also know the history of the group we used and considering their bloody resume, it never occured to me anyone would take the runaway mission excuse seriously. Its called plausable deniability and its niave to allow government officials to get away with that excuse. Bottom line is Casey and Raygun ARE responsible for what their functionaries do FOR them when they are under our contract and egis
If you are so familiar with this case, then writing that Reagan and Casey planted a bomb set to go off as a Mosque was letting out is disingenuous at best. I asked you for a source that backed up this statement and the ones you provided me with, at best, reach no conclusion as to the nature of US involvement in that specific attack. What the sources did show was that the US contracted with the group that carried out the attack, but that is not the same as Reagan and Casey planting the bomb, literally or figuratively (yes I know you did not mean they personally planted the bomb, but you did mean that they had direct involvement and/or knowledge with and of the attack, an assertion that you later contradicted).
"What the sources did show was that the US contracted with the group that carried out the attack, but that is not the same as Reagan and Casey planting the bomb, literally or figuratively (yes I know you did not mean they personally planted the bomb, but you did mean that they had direct involvement and/or knowledge with and of the attack, an assertion that you later contradicted)." --IO
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, then by that reasoning if Osama bin Laden only contracted with terrorists to destroy the WTC, the Pentagon and the Whitehouse, then OBL isn't necessarily liable for any deaths? I mean, after all, he was only contracting to destroy buildings. How could he possibly know there would be people inside or any trivial details like that? Besides OBL didn't "literally or figuratively" fly those planes into those buildings. Why are we supposedly so interested in him if he bears no liability other than maybe some property damage?
You seem to think that the fact that Casey contracted with someone else to use terrorist tactics, that somehow insulates him from the results of his actions. That is a pretty obvious logical error. You can't simply escape all liability because you use a questionable middle man.
You should really read Veil. It is an underated book and describes several operations in vivid detail that were executed under the Reagan Administration.
I never said that Casey should escape all liability. I simply said that his actions are not the same as having direct knowledge or being directly involved in the planning of the attack. My argument was one of debunking equivalency, not of insulating someone from liability. Read more carefully.
Then your whole argument is just one of degree. You said those who kill women and children and bomb holy Mosques should be eradicated or something like that. OK, if you are willing to extend that to OUR government when we do it even to a lesser extent because of lessened liability, which is fine I wasnt trying to claim any equivilency, then we are basically on the same page. Here is the point I was aiming at. Terrorism is horrific and I am all for fighting it. State violence and state sanctioned violence kills far more people in the world and also has tragic consequences we should oppose. Since OUR country also does this and since we are most responsible for what WE do and what is done in OUR name and with OUR tax dollars this should not be swept under the rug but opposed and when discovered should have consequences. Raygun and Casey both should have been held responsible. They werent. You in your post showed great admiration for Raygun. His crimes even if lesser than outright terrorists should be addressed not forgotten, why show such admiriation for him and contempt for official enemies? Our involvement in such state sanctioned violence should END. We can still send out Seal teams to find and kill tagetted terrorists I would support writing international agreements that allow such roaming military groups to do just that. However the out of control and indiscriminate killing such as the Beiruit Mosque bombing should NOT be allowed in ANY way and when it happens should have consequences.
Yes, of course, they are not equivalent actions (if only in a literal sense), but the effect of the actions and the liability is the same as if they had done it themselves. That was the point I think you missed. The fact they are not precisely literally equivalent is moot in regards to the way the law would apply to it.
There is no moral difference between what Casey did and what any terrorist would do.
No I didnt contradict myself. As I said the Lebanese intelligence at this time was a bloody group of terrorists basically open to the highest bidder working with the Druze, Haddad, Phalangists of whoever paid them, they were totally out of control and by dealing with them we became responsible for what they did. That is a fairly well understood principle. IF you hire a group to do something YOU are responsible for what they do. In that sense its what you did. IF they had dealt with a group that had clean hands I would cut them more slack but they didnt. Also at this time our intelligence made this mistake more than once letting intelligence assets commit horrific attrocities. When the Air India flight was bombed we blamed Khadaffi the investigation showed it was two Sikh extremists freshly out of a CIA counterterrorist training camp in Alabama. George Shultz had to go to India personally and appologize for that one. We were training the Muhajadeen that became al Queda. Not to mention the Contras. Raygun had a bloody history of unleashing terrorists on the world along with supporting the most brutal of dicatators. Suhuarto was committing near genocide in East Timor flying our planes and feeding their soldiers with our MREs. Rios Montt was given a medal of freedom by Raygun after slaughtering about 50,000 of his people in Guatemala. When you arent careful enough about how force is used in your name its still your responsibility. I think my earlier analogy is apt. You cant hire Billy the Kid to rob a bank then act suprised when he kills someone. I am off to work and dont have time to look up specific references but Turning the Tide and Pirates and Emporers by Chomsky should have all this information if you care to check it out.
Here we go Bob Woodward and Charles Babcock Washington Post May 12, 1985. Also Boustany Washington Post March 14, 1988 and Bob Woodward Veil ( the book I was thinking of earlier) 1987. Ever hear of FACTS? The thing is just because it isnt common knowlege on Planet Wingnut doesnt mean it isnt true.
See my response above.
See my response to your PATHETIC attempt at a response
And thank you for the cites. I will look into them when I get the chance.
It's right, Solon- How many chimpanzee movies have you made?
NO YOU are attempting to use your nonexistant amazing mind reading powers to appologize for O'falafel AGAIN. The man does this professionally. Unless he clarifies his statement HIMSELF, not via proxy appologists and appologizes HIMSELF for the poor phrasing I will just assume he meant what he actually said. Not what you WISH he said to further YOUR point.
Sounds like they enjoy after you read this quote.
"The roads are totally blocked," Haddad said. "Only our people can pass."And if government supporters try to use the road?Haddad grinned and held a wooden club aloft. A short time later, reports spread of cars being attacked on the road."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-lebanon26jan26,1,4523468.story?coll=la-news-a_section
I think it's certainly true that at least some extremists involved in the civil war in Iraq enjoy killing babies and blowing up holy shrines. But perhaps others don't enjoy doing it; instead, perhaps they kill babies out of a sense of duty and they derive no real pleasure from it. Either way, I don't see why O'Reilly's conjecture that the extremists enjoy doing what they're doing is worth mentioning. Is it because MMFA so strongly believes that the killers in Iraq are killing joylessly, or is it because MMFA believes that O'Reilly shouldn't profess to know more than he does about the emotions of Islamist terrorists? If the latter, then how does O'Reilly's conjecture in any way advance the conservative agenda or constitute conservative misinformation instead of just being an example of unimportant exaggeration?
How about because he didnt say anything about extremists not about Iran not about the Sunnis and Shiites. He made a broad statement about Sunnis and Shiites and about Iran.
They all start with a broad statement. Solon.
When they get called on it it's easier to dismiss the broad statement as a joke or taken out of context.The idea is that the critics don't pick up the implied nuance of O'reilly, Limbaugh, etc.
BUT they try to imply that the dittoheads DO understand. Har.
I've watched Bill O'Reilly off and on for several years, and I'm convinced that lawsuit by a former female producer charging O'Reilly with sexual phone harrassment has made him a very, very angry person. I have also noticed that as weeks go by O'Reilly seems to insert more and more sex topics into his show which only underscores why he got into the trouble with the former Fox News female producer in the first place. O'Reilly is miserable and comes across on TV as sexually twisted.
Yes, we could have worked with Stalin. We worked with Pinochet. We worked with Saddam. We worked with Hitler. Many mutlinationals have profited greatly from Hitlers 'labour forces' and are STILL AROUND today and not leaving anytime soon. The US has installed more dictators then ANY 'savage' people. US multinationals have done more to oppress and extort the people of the world with all means necessary than any man in his RIGHT MIND could imagine.