About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

O'Reilly's "note" to Brian Williams: Ft. Hood shooting "was not a tragedy... it was a terrorist act"

November 12, 2009 8:45 pm ET

From the November 12 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
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by soze169880 (November 12, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
      2  
      O'Reilly's true objection revealed: tragedies require us to be sad, and all he wants to do is get blindly angry. From a safe, non-enlisted distance, of course.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by all your eyes (November 12, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
      2  
      The echo chamber at its finest. I must have heard the "it's not a tragedy" line 100 times since last week.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (November 12, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
        2 6
        That is almost as extreme as the PC left ducking the terrorism connection.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (November 12, 2009 9:25 pm ET)
          2  
          Really? Because I think suggesting we shouldn't be sad when people are murdered is fairly extreme.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (November 12, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
            2 6
            Who said that? Who suggested that?

            Answer, no one.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by soze169880 (November 12, 2009 9:35 pm ET)
              1  
              Who said that? Who suggested that?

              Answer, anyone who's somehow offended by calling it a tragedy.

              Fix'd.
              (You know, you really don't seem very liberal.)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (November 12, 2009 11:18 pm ET)
                3 1
                He's not, but getting him to stop with any talking point that has been debunkted already several times, is a fair task.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (November 13, 2009 9:14 am ET)
                2  
                Or very intelligent. If she didn't hear it on Fox, it doesn't exist and if she did hear it on Fox, I guarantee she didn't check to see if it was true.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (November 12, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
            2 2
            I agree, soze.

            I also think that continuing to hype a "terrorism connection" -- one that Army and FBI investigators say was largely nonexistent -- is also pretty extreme.

            But, sadly, not uncommon for OhReally and his minions like FAILliberal here . . .

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Civic Racecar (November 12, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
          1 1
          The sad thing is that the right is claiming this is not a tragedy. Of course it is a tragedy. Over a dozen soldiers getting killed at a military base on US soil is a sad disaster. I wish the right would stop politicizing this and treat it like what it is: a tragic event that should never have happened. However, the right would rather call this terrorism and claim that Obama failed the troops, rather than just go on the air, report the news, and express their condolences. While Rahm said to never let a crisis go to waste, it seems like the right is saying, "never let a tragedy go to waste."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (November 12, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
            2 4
            I can't say that no righties have blamed Obama, but I have not heard any blame him. They do blame the PC policy that abounds in many places. But why is the left so afraid to call a spade a shovel. The left cites post-tramatic stress and other factors, he never deployed, how could he be suffering from post-tramatic stress. His history as it is now emerging supports the terrorism claims. His use of "Allah Akbar" as he murders people supports the terrorism claim. And the terrorist tactic of sleeper cells certainly could be at work here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mjh (November 13, 2009 1:35 am ET)
              1  
              "I can't say that no righties have blamed Obama, but I have not heard any blame him."


              You need to get out more, FAILlib.


              "But why is the left so afraid to call a spade a shovel."


              I believe the expression is, "call a spade a spade." {Which is what we're doing be referring to the shootings as a tragedy.}


              "His use of "Allah Akbar" as he murders people supports the terrorism claim."


              So -- anyone who shouts "Allah Akbar" is automatically a terrorist?

              Well, that solves it! FAILlib, why aren't you part of the investigation team? [sarcasm]

              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (November 13, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
                  3
                As far as the spade comments goes , I've seen it both ways. But more importantly , you edit my comments and omit the phrase "as he murders people" to dispute my statement. Why would you deliberately leave that out? I wonder.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (November 13, 2009 9:32 pm ET)
                    3
                  And your link supports my comments every bit as much as it supports yours. Since i rarely watch Hannity, he can be almost as obnoxious as Olbermann, I missed his chat with Morris. But both he and Malkin do speak of political correctness as their main point.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Civic Racecar (November 13, 2009 2:54 am ET)
              2  
              The left has no problem with calling people terrorists, but only if the facts back it up. By what you've stated, this seems to be an isolated event, unlike 9-11, and you stated that the terrorist tactic of sleeper cells could be at work here. The only fact you have is that he yelled "Allah Akbar." If he yelled "White Power," would you say that he was a right-wing terrorist? Probably not.

              The MSM doesn't really like to play fast and loose, like FNC does. By your standards, the media would accuse everyone of wrong doing and when they proved to be innocent, we would just move on. They can repair up their own credibility that the media destroyed, right?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (November 13, 2009 9:18 am ET)
              2  
              You really need to expand your horizons, FL.

              BTW, Allah Akbar means "God is Great," it is a term that is used EVERY DAY by Muslims. It does not, in and of itself, "support the terrorist claim."

              Try learning something ON YOUR OWN and quit listening to Fox as if they are telling you the TRUTH. They are feeding you OPINION and speculation, not fact.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by pauldd (November 12, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
      1  
      Define terrorism:

      "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"

      Now Bill-O, explain how this def. fits with your assertion about Hasan.

      Never mind, you won't; you can't!

      But that's never impeded your verbal inanity before. And there are plenty of dupes ready to gobble up your brand of fear mongering and cowardice.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (November 12, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
      1  
      O'Reilly's "note" to Brian Williams: Ft. Hood shooting "was not a tragedy... it was a terrorist act"


      My "note" to Bull OhReally: the Army and FBI say otherwise.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (November 12, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
      3 1
      Hasan was connected to Al Qaeda like Jodie Foster was Hinckley's accomplice.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LiberallySpiced (November 12, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
        2
      Hmmmm let me see now... armed gunman - check, outspoken Islamofascist - check, shouting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of his lungs - check, shooting everyone in sight at a public gathering of innocent people - check. hmmmm - I'm guessing TERRORIST!
      Just because FOX says he is a terrorist isn't a good reason for the "politically correct" to say he isn't. Get your head out of the sand.
      If it looks like a terrorist, smells like a terrorist, and acts like a terrorist - it's probably a terrorist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (November 13, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
           
        How is one an "outspoken Islamofascist" when "Islamofascist" means precisely nothing? Did he often remark "Boy, I sure do support a ridiculous, contradictory, undefinable concept"?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (November 14, 2009 1:07 am ET)
        1  
        An officer sneeks two handguns onto a miltary base. He opens fire on what? Military people. No ambush of senior officers, no bombs, no viable threats to the nearby civilian population. No hostages taken. No demands or rants issued to the media.
        A deranged an lethal individual, yes. Maximun destruction and threat done with all possible resources,no. Not even close to what an Army medical Major could arrange as a dedicated intelligent terrorist.
        Report Abuse