About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Peters on Fort Hood shooting: "It's clear that the problem is Islam"

November 10, 2009 8:19 pm ET

From the November 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Peters says alleged Ft. Hood shooter was a "protected species" who was "running around in his little Islamist play suit"

Peters is "sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace ... I haven't seen a lot of Southern Baptist suicide bombers"

On O'Reilly, Peters dubs Fort Hood "the new 9-11," blames Army for being "politically correct" in not getting rid of Hasan

Fox News' Peters calls Muslims "a protected species, a protected minority" in rant about PC culture in Ft. Hood tragedy

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sarah's Trusty Telepalmer (November 10, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
      3 2
      why does oreilly continue to bring this clown on? before he had general wesley clark, a noble and respected general who was more rational than basically everybody at fox. but as soon as oreilly found out hes too liberal and supports george soros, he got rid of him and replaced him with this joke.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
        2 6
        Weasley Clark a respected general? The guy was despised by everyone who worked for him and by everyone that he worked for. He was FIRED from his NATO job for gross incompetence.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (November 10, 2009 8:34 pm ET)
             
          Even if that were true, he's still superior to this old creep. I don't think Clark ever actively hoped the Taliban murdered an American soldier.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Sarah's Trusty Telepalmer (November 10, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
          2  
          despised for what? he didnt do anything wrong to be despised. regardless of what you claim about his reputation and supposed firing from NATO, he was still a four-star general with a laundry list of awards and honors. it wasnt the liberals who gave it to him, either, it was the army. put that in your pipe and smoke it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
              6
            He was nothing but an incompetant admin general. There's no shortage of them in the Army. True to the "Peter principle" he rose to the level of his incompetency - about the time he got promoted to 1st lieutenant.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ghost of russell (November 10, 2009 10:13 pm ET)
              3  
              Apparently in wingnutland, stopping a genicide with no nato casualties was a miserable failure. Especially in comparison to what we have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

              How's the weather in bizzaro-world?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
                  6
                Stopping a genocide? Are you kidding? Weasley took over in 1997 and was fired for "integrity and character issues" in 1999 or 2000. The real work was done before 1996.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ghost of russell (November 10, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The real work was done three years before the kosovo ethnic cleansing started?

                  And by the way, you seem confused about what actually happened to Clark. The Vice Chairman of the Joints of Staff, Joseph Ralston, due an extramarital affair, was forced out of the joint chiefs and took Clark's place, as the generalship was the only position left for him. Clark was thus forced into early retirement. At the time, Clark, the pentagon and Ralston all maintained that it was a normal personnel decision. Ralston, however, claimed during the 2004 primaries that it really was "integrity and character issues", but did not elaborate on what they were.

                  So, in sum, we don't know what happened. It's equally possible that Clark was simply black-balled by envious peers.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Sarah's Trusty Telepalmer (November 11, 2009 12:53 am ET)
                    2  
                    i knew brutus was lying about clark being fired... something told me that just cant be true. not many four-star generals with multiple awards are fired when they never did anything wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by brutusmaximus (November 11, 2009 8:10 am ET)
                      3
                    Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. "I’ve known Wes for a long time," Shelton said. "I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . ."

                    The loser was FIRED!



                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ghost of russell (November 11, 2009 10:59 am ET)
                         
                      Fine just believe the word of ONE person, four years after the fact, who provided no explanation of what he meant by "integrity and character issues". Ralston, as mentioned before, had just been dismissed himself for an extramarital affair. Anyways, no matter what happened, Clark was not fired, he was let go due in part to a personell shuffle. Period.

                      And whether or not he was let go for the reasons Ralston says he was, he most certainly was a wildly successful general.

                      If your only source of info on a subject is Michelle Malkin or some freeper, I suggest you get a second opinion.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (November 11, 2009 10:24 am ET)
                     
                  You are incorrect. You are repeating an unsubstantiated rumor regarding his retirement.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
      1 8
      To prove that Peters is wrong why doesn't MMFA show all the clips of all those Imams and denouncing the terrorist attack?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Barry Bonds (November 10, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
        5  
        Isn't it just wrong on its face. Do we really need to indulge this idiot?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (November 10, 2009 8:32 pm ET)
           
        You're right, we don't have the video, and thus every Muslim in America is a murderous criminal. You sure are smart.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 10, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
        2  
        Not having seen this edition of the Factor, did O'Reilly show them?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
            5
          No, because they don't exist.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (November 11, 2009 12:06 am ET)
            2  
            Now you know why MMFA didn't show them.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (November 11, 2009 7:34 am ET)
            1  
            Actually, they do. If you go back and remember back to 9/11, and the outcry from the world, including Islamic Imams, that that event was despicable and not in line with mainstream Islamic beliefs, or the Islamic scholars and Imams who continually denounce terrorism. It's just that folks like yourself choose not to see it.

            Link dump
            Report Abuse
            • Author by carlh (November 11, 2009 9:06 am ET)
                 
              There was actually a really stirring interview with an American Imam on NPR last night. I can't find it on their website though...I wish I could find it because it was an amazing interview talking about how proud American muslims were to be able to serve in the United States.

              How can this knucklehead Peters get away with saying "the evidence is there!" when it obviously is not?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 10, 2009 8:35 pm ET)
      2 1
      How about the actual evidence? Terrorism is defined by motive and not by situation or circumstance. Such characteristics include - a deliberate target, the initial goal of creating fear and a larger ideological message. That is what terrorism is all about and its not so clear that this encompassed those above.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
        2 5
        How much more clear does it have to be, sharpe?
        Report Abuse
          • Author by ghost of russell (November 10, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
            1  
            Exactly, we are not allowed to behave rationally in the face of a tragedy! It is the president's duty after something like this to make sure everyone is sufficiently panicked. And the first step in this process is jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that there was something unique about this mass-murder when compared to others. Next he should raise the terror alert levels and report an ominous rise in "noise". Then a widespread profiling campaign against muslims is called for.

            The bottom line; sanity is not an option when you're dealing with terrorists.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (November 11, 2009 10:28 am ET)
            1  
            They acted stupidly. Every cop I know said that Crowley acted stupidly. When he was told that Gates was in his own home, he should have apologized for the mistake, given Gates his name [which Gates asked for and was denied], turned around and LEFT. Instead, he decided to arrest a man for being upset about being rousted IN HIS OWN HOME. Skin color was irrelevant.

            The facts Obama had was that a man he knew personally had been arrested IN HIS OWN HOME for being upset about being rousted IN HIS OWN HOME. Sorry, but the cop acted stupidly.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 10, 2009 8:59 pm ET)
          1  
          Like i said above - evidence of the three above which would be had by Hasan telling someone his motives for the attack most likely. That is it because motivation is the only thing that separates a terrorist attack from a mass murder like Virginia tech and columbine.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (November 10, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
      3  
      [http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x177/Diogenes2008/Best%20Of/Keith1001006.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (November 10, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
          8
        Who's the guy slapping his forehead? Another one of Obumble's czars?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (November 11, 2009 7:36 am ET)
             
          You're a sharp one there Brutus. I can tell, you've got the GOP humor down.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (November 10, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
      3 1
      I guess that's the Ft. Hood talking point of the week to find some sort of fault in Obama. The talking point of the day is selectively memory and nonsensical statements about the Gates incident. I think it's all the racist people hearing Murdock's words and trying to rationalize why they agree with him and the rest are people who just can't help but dive out of reality to take a shot at Obama.......for some reason....we're not....sure of.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (November 10, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
      1 7
      Nah, the problem here is what the president has called, 'man made disasters'. A man made disaster is not caused by a religion, it is caused by 'mixed up logic' or 'naughty nuggets of neurons' or even possibly 'not quite directly traumatized stress reacting posers'. But in no way shape or form should this in any fashion or manner be considered in the slightest to be even remotely connected or inferred to be distantly related to an act of terrorism that is based upon the tenents of someone's religion. Nope, nada, nyet.

      Because if it was to be a terrorist act by an islamic terrotist, one would have to believe that the terrorist made previous terrorism supporting statements connected with his religion, or attempted or possibly had contact with terrorist supporters within that religion or even shouted the name of his god to be praised when beginning his terrorist action. Nope, no way, not here no how!

      But here's what awaits for him...

      [http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/72-virgins-photo.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (November 10, 2009 9:20 pm ET)
           
        IDK, I think some of those camels are proud parents...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 10, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
        1  
        Remember this if you ever get offended by someone making cracks about Christianity.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (November 11, 2009 7:37 am ET)
           
        Except that the report of the shooter shouting to Allah has not been confirmed by anyone.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (November 11, 2009 9:03 am ET)
          1
        Maybe John Muhammad is enjoying those virgins right now.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (November 10, 2009 9:21 pm ET)
      3  
      Your absolutely right Col. Peters. Clearly this was an act of terror. President Obama should immediately order a swift military response in the form of an all out assault on these Islamist terrorists in our military.

      I recommend an aggressive air campaign followed by expeditionary forces and occupation of all military installations harboring these US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Islamist Terroists.

      We may have to clarify one aspect of the tactics though. Are the Muslim service personnel supposed to shoot themselves before or after all their comrades? Are the Muslim pilots supposed to crash their planes before or after delivering their payload on their own bases or are kamikaze attacks needed to demonstrate their clear commitment to the Jihad?

      Jackass.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (November 11, 2009 2:04 am ET)
      1  
      More religious bigotry from this pea-brained, knuckle-dragging troglodyte Peters.

      Faux News is incapable of registering shame.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (November 11, 2009 9:36 am ET)
      1  
      Peters on Fort Hood shooting: "It's clear that the problem is Islam"

      Why is this screwball still coming on TV denouncing Islamic religion. Hey Peters! Read the Christian bible you would be surprised in what you read!

      Let's also denounce Dr. Tiller's killer Scott Roader. David Leach, publisher of Prayer & Action News, a magazine that opines that the killing of abortion providers would be a justifiable homicide.
      Also, Roeder's former roommate of two years, Eddie Ebecher, who had met Roeder through the Freemen movement in the 1990s, told a reporter after Tiller's murder that he and Roeder had considered themselves members of the Army of God. Now should we say Christians is a problem? Hmm? Nooo what ever christians do is not a problem, just muslims.


      *FACEPALM*
      Report Abuse