Bill O’Reilly’s Final Solution

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
Bill O Reilly goes too far

Bill O Reilly bastion of all that's wrong with uber conservative america lashes out at Muslims. Calling for their extermination. In canada he would be charged with a hate crime, but I guess in conservative america this passes off as "entertainment". Here's an excerpt:

Bill O Reilly said:
And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses....

And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them.
Click to expand...


somebody should shut this nazi down


thanks to Pogrom for sending me this link
 
in america that would be considered a hate crime, but it was a radio broadcasting so it wasn't to the mainstream press, if it was on his show he'd probably get fired for it
 
That doesn't sound like him at all, but he does make a good point, maybe we shouldn't help any countries in the Middle East anymore. There are too many morons over there, all the holy land and jihad BS. While they don't represent the majority(or anywhere near that) they are still there and cause problems.
 
I am a conservative. Next time you actually want to make a valid point without me trying to flame you, can you stop making it sound like all conservative's are related to Hilter?

I would like to see a larger, unedited version of that transcipt. Sounds like somebody was doing some editing...
 
at my school theres a kid called charlie o'reilly. Hes tall and thin, plus he has big ears. its funny because when you hurt him he screams "OW MY LEG" or "OW MY <insert place to hit here>".

:LOL: he. he. he.
 
Foxtrot said:
That doesn't sound like him at all, but he does make a good point, maybe we shouldn't help any countries in the Middle East anymore. There are too many morons over there, all the holy land and jihad BS. While they don't represent the majority(or anywhere near that) they are still there and cause problems.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well there is a big difference between not intervening and genocide!

That is what he is suggesting by the way...
 
blahblahblah said:
I am a conservative. Next time you actually want to make a valid point without me trying to flame you, can you stop making it sound like all conservative's are related to Hilter?

I would like to see a larger, unedited version of that transcipt. Sounds like somebody was doing some editing...
Click to expand...

I said uber conservative
 
why are you defending him? if you dont believe it was O reilly who said that why not send the author of the article an email asking for his sources...here's his email address:

[email protected]
 
Adidajs said:
i sincerely doubt o'reilly actually said that.
Click to expand...

Oh, he did. I heard it live on his radio show, that he refers to as "The Radio Factor." He definitely said that. I was shocked.
 
I agree, bomb the hell out of them.

And don't try to spin this, he isn't suggesting genocide on the Muslim people. He is just saying we can't go about intervention in the mid-east the way we have in Iraq. They are too prehistoric in their mindset, they wont understand what we are doing nor will they appreciate it. They would rather waller in the convoluted gunk that is their present way of life than be liberated by an enlightened nation and become free. They don't want control of their life, they don't want liberation - they are content with slavery, they are content with thug dictators squandering their money and taking a giant shit on their society. So let them keep it, and the next time we have an issue with them(such as Iran's nuclear iinnitiative), no liberating force, no spending billions improving their way of life, no trying to enlighten the ignorant masses, just bomb the hell out of them and do what we need to do and call the job done.
 
Devilphish said:
I agree, bomb the hell out of them.

And don't try to spin this, he isn't suggesting genocide on the Muslim people. He is just saying we can't go about intervention in the mid-east the way we have in Iraq. They are too prehistoric in their mindset, they wont understand what we are doing nor will they appreciate it. They would rather waller in the convoluted gunk that is their present way of life than be liberated by an enlightened nation and become free. They don't want control of their life, they don't want liberation - they are content with slavery, they are content with thug dictators squandering their money and taking a giant shit on their society. So let them keep it, and the next time we have an issue with them(such as Iran's nuclear iinnitiative), no liberating force, no spending billions improving their way of life, no trying to enlighten the ignorant masses, just bomb the hell out of them and do what we need to do and call the job done.
Click to expand...
Even if you are right, your posts do nothing but enrage people. I havn't found anyone here with your views ever, you are not convincing anyone of anything. In fact you are simply solidifying everyone elses views against your own. It is counter-productive on your part since you are just making people hate you more and loath your point of view more than before. You must realize this.
 
Devilphish said:
And don't try to spin this
Click to expand...

What? Are you an official scout in the O'Rielly youth brigade? Trying to create your own little "no-spin zone" here? Get a new line.

Do you really expect to defeat terrorism by killing mass amounts of Muslims through carpet bombing?
 
Devilphish said:
I agree, bomb the hell out of them.

And don't try to spin this, he isn't suggesting genocide on the Muslim people. He is just saying we can't go about intervention in the mid-east the way we have in Iraq. They are too prehistoric in their mindset, they wont understand what we are doing nor will they appreciate it. They would rather waller in the convoluted gunk that is their present way of life than be liberated by an enlightened nation and become free. They don't want control of their life, they don't want liberation - they are content with slavery, they are content with thug dictators squandering their money and taking a giant shit on their society. So let them keep it, and the next time we have an issue with them(such as Iran's nuclear iinnitiative), no liberating force, no spending billions improving their way of life, no trying to enlighten the ignorant masses, just bomb the hell out of them and do what we need to do and call the job done.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with you, but I think if we really try we can make them understand we are helping them. Or we can just kill everyone that is a problem(the suicidal jihad type) and get on with our business.
 
DarkStar said:
What? Are you an official scout in the O'Rielly youth brigade? Trying to create your own little "no-spin zone" here? Get a new line.

Do you really expect to defeat terrorism by killing mass amounts of Muslims by carpet bombing?
Click to expand...
Or tactical nukes...hahah sorry I had to say that.
 
What? Are you an official scout in the O'Rielly youth brigade? Trying to create your own little "no-spin zone" here? Get a new line.
Click to expand...

Thats what is going on here. It is popular to bash Bill, and I don't really care, but if your going to bash him atleast do it for good reason and not spin his words around to mean something completely different than what he was saying. He isn't suggesting randomly carpet bombing the muslim people, or genocide. He is just saying that the method of intervention we used in Iraq and the sacrifices we have to make to go about it that way is simply not worth it in the case of most of the mid-east. Maybe if the people were more receptive to liberation and the introduction of freedom into their society, it would be worth it. But they aren't, so it isn't. Thats all Bill is saying.
 
^^ It's just funny that O'Reilly calls his show "the no-spin zone" when his entire show is about people's opinions. Actually...mainly his opinion because he interrupts and cuts off his guests constantly.

Seriously, if you don't believe that Bill O'Reily is a pompous blowhard just listen to this interview he did with Terri Gross on NPR (an organization that does REAL journalism) It's about a 45 minute interview, so avoid it if you have a short attention span.

Bill O'Reilly makes a fool out of himself on NPR:

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue=day&todayDate=10/08/2003
 
amazingly, Devilphish is actually right. i think o'reilly is a buffoon, but he isn't saying to bomb all muslims, or even iraqis, but, instead, use airstrikes against specific targets like we did in the balkans (however, he's not pointing out that a significant part of securing the balkans was the occupying UN ground troops). and o'reilly has a point, if infact only 2% of the iraqi people even want us over there.

but o'reilly is making some logical errors, imo. 1) the tactic he proposes certainly won't endear us to hte muslim world, and would likely escalate muslim hatred of the US (and potentially, terrorism) in other parts of the muslim world. it'd be just as much a recruitment boost for al-qaeda as the ground invasion, probably. 2) as with the balkans, simply bombing won't win the battle. occupation is necessary in most wars in order to secure peace. 3) o'reilly is going against many of his right-wing pundit friends by implying that we out to pull out of the region. we certainly won't create a "bastion of democracy" in iraq just by bombing supposed al-qaeda safehouses.

the real problem is that people like o'reilly supported the war, but don't want to pay the price. we're in a world of shit over there now because of bush's short-sightedness and unilateralism. i don't see any easy solutions unfortunately.

edit: thanks for that NPR link darkstar.. but realize that anyone who likes o'reilly knows that NPR is just an unamerican liberal organisation ;)
 
Perhaps you misunderstood my motivation for posting. I'm not trying to defend his character. I don't feel one way or another about him. But in this particular case people are stretching what he said to mean something completely different so that they can bash him. If you have a good reason to bash him(I'm sure there are some) by all means go ahead, just don't misrepresent what he said. BTW his show isn't called the no-spin zone because they don't give opinions, it's called that because he doesn't allow misrepresentation of the facts(like what is going on in this thread). Opinions based on facts are fine, spinning the facts is not.

I'll check out that interview. I'm still waiting for Ludacris to go on the factor. ;o
 
it's O'Reilly's choice of words that are so inflammatory:


Bill O'Reilly said:
"I think that they're a prehistoric group"

"Bomb the living daylights out of them."

"Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?” He made it clear he doesn’t “care about the people of Fallujah” and that “we know what the final solution should be.”
Click to expand...
sounds like hate to me



Devilphish said:
I agree, bomb the hell out of them.

They are too prehistoric in their mindset

They would rather waller in the convoluted gunk that is their present way of life than be liberated by an enlightened nation and become free
Click to expand...
sounds like hate to me
 
you tell em hammer Bill Orielly is a shit slinging testicle wart. What I do recommend is that you all see fahrenheit 911 asap.
 
@Cpt. Stern
originally i had just read the blocked-off o'reilly quote, and not the rest of the article. although potentially taken out of context, statements like "Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?" are pretty indefensible; monsterous at worst, unforgivibly reckless at best.

also, the point about targeting civilians (directly or indirectly) that he advocated is well made. although one can argue whether or not he is making a salient point, it is blatantly contradictory to the geneva conventions.
 
i tend to agree with most of what o'reilly says, i just don't like how he argues his points with guests. i think he just gets so excited about his topic that he can't keep himself under control. actually it's kinda funny because i'm like that. I got into an argument with my roommate about iraq and i wouldn't let him speak. only when he threatened to leave the argument did i finally realize what i was doing....

I think o'reilly is just frustrated like most americans with how we perceive our troops over there. We really hoped iraqis would welcome us, but it's not like that at all. they just want us to leave. they did a poll recently and the majority of iraqis just want the coalition to flat out leave. I sincerely doubt that would improve their situation really, but it's interesting that it's come to that.
 
they never saw it as liberation, it was always an occupation
 
sounds like hate to me
Click to expand...

Smells like ass to me. Quote something from me where I state I hate them or even insinuate such a thing when examined in a reasonable manner. You are applying the same misrepresentation of statements made to me as you are to Bill. I don't hate them, but I DO despise the notion of making more tremendous sacrifices for a people who are obviously content with their own wretched situation and do not seem to have the capacity to appreciate and take advantage of an opportunity to rid themselves of it, especially at the expense of more American lives.
 
darkstar, i listened to that npr interview. honestly, i don't blame o'reilly for acting the way he did. sure, by the end he gave into his own sense of hyperbloe that extends from his inflated ego, but the 'fresh air' host was being a tool. it was pretty obvious fromt he start that she wasn't going to actually talk about his book at all. that was the reason he was on, wasn't it? he tried on several occasions to talk about his ideas in the book, but all she wanted to talk about was him and his detractor arguments. it was a pretty poor job on her part, imo.
 
Devilphish said:
Smells like ass to me. Quote something from me where I state I hate them or even insinuate such a thing when examined in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...

"I agree, bomb the hell out of them."

how? how will you bomb the hell out of them without killing civilians? it would be wholesale slaughter
 
Adidajs said:
i tend to agree with most of what o'reilly says, i just don't like how he argues his points with guests. i think he just gets so excited about his topic that he can't keep himself under control. actually it's kinda funny because i'm like that. I got into an argument with my roommate about iraq and i wouldn't let him speak. only when he threatened to leave the argument did i finally realize what i was doing....

I think o'reilly is just frustrated like most americans with how we perceive our troops over there. We really hoped iraqis would welcome us, but it's not like that at all. they just want us to leave. they did a poll recently and the majority of iraqis just want the coalition to flat out leave. I sincerely doubt that would improve their situation really, but it's interesting that it's come to that.
Click to expand...
It is because the Iraqis have too much pride and they don't think they need help from any foreign country, they would have been fine on their own. That is accoring to my Arab friend.
 
This goes a little Off Topic. Sorry Mods

Do you guys remember that MTV show "Celebrity Deathmatch?" I have the ultimate showdown, Michael Moore and Bill O' Reilly. They are both extremists and both have gigantic egos. It would be a battle for the ages. :E
 
how? how will you bomb the hell out of them without killing civilians? it would be wholesale slaughter
Click to expand...

What he meant when he said we should bomb them wasn't that we should randomly bomb civilian muslim targets, but rather that we should take a less involving approach to future intervention in the muslim world, instead of moving in and counting on winning the hearts and minds of the people. Thats all he meant. He wasn't talking about the eradification of muslim people, or "wholesale slaughter" of muslim civilians, and this is clear when you take his words in the context in which they were spoken. This isn't difficult. You are taking a single sentance and putting it out on it's own with no context, then inventing your own idea of what was meant by the sentance. It seems to me that you just want to bash the guy and are willing to let your mind run amuck with his words and invent meaning behind them that was never intended. He may be blunt with is words, but he isn't genocidal.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
darkstar, i listened to that npr interview. honestly, i don't blame o'reilly for acting the way he did. sure, by the end he gave into his own sense of hyperbloe that extends from his inflated ego, but the 'fresh air' host was being a tool. it was pretty obvious fromt he start that she wasn't going to actually talk about his book at all. that was the reason he was on, wasn't it? he tried on several occasions to talk about his ideas in the book, but all she wanted to talk about was him and his detractor arguments. it was a pretty poor job on her part, imo.
Click to expand...

Terri Gross has every right to ask her guests tough questions and she frequently does. Not all of them however throw hissy fits and walk out. Listen to any interview she has done with William Specter if you want to see an example of a conservative handling tough questions in a mature and respectable way.

Bill O'Reilly came off as a moron in that interview. If he knew anything about the format of the NPR show Fresh Air, he would know that it isn't all about promoting a book. It's about in-depth discussions with public figures. He should have expected to recieve some flak and prepared for it. I mean, Gross has the right to confront O'Reilly about his badmouthing people who give him poor book reviews. Those are completely legitimate questions. Tough questions are a part of being a public figure, O'Reilly asks his guests similar questions all the time. He just CANNOT take them himself. I really can't believe you thought Terri Gross was a "tool" in that interview. I mean...I'm just at a loss for words...

By the way, of course the day after that interview, Terri Gross was O'Reilly's "most ridiculous item of the day" on the factor.
 
Wow... way to spin someone else's quote.

To tell you the truth I have never really cared for extremists in either wing of politics because guess what - they are extremists - and they will go to extremes. Funny isn't it? Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly are opossite ends, Moore sits at liberals and Oreilly at the conservative chair.

Why am I posting here? Simple, there's a spin being put on this quote. Words that are clearly meant as something else are taken out of context to prove the apparent point "Oreilly is the next Hitler". Is that not what you wanted us to believe CptStern? Your post surely puts strong emphasis on that conclusion.

The truth is that Devilphish is correct, and I agree with Oreilly's conclusion to an extent. The U.S should not be the world's police if the world doesn't want it. If a nation wants and welcomes U.S help or interference then by all means go in and take care of business. However if some random country decides it's a good idea to kill innocent people because of their beliefs then America should bomb the instigators right back. Is this the most humane way of doing things? No, but neither is sending suicide bombers and terrorists to kill innocents because you believe in what you do.

So here's my policy, mess with me once and you're reprimanded, mess with me again and you get punch in the face. This is Oreilly's point at the very core.
 
DarkStar said:
By the way, of course the day after that interview, Terri Gross was O'Reilly's "most ridiculous item of the day" on the factor.
Click to expand...
yeah, that's in the audio clip. actually, he did that the night before she aired the interview. to me it was just a stupid interview.

i've heard his pompousness and blow-hardedness before, and i saw the exchange between al franken and him live on c-span, it was pretty funny. if you think he lost his shit with terri groos, you should see that. franken does a better job of exposing his hypocrasy that terri gross did. my problem is that i've heard all of that before, and it was a poor interview. i mean, she asks him several times how these people are character assassins and whatnot, and he answers her.. you might not agree with his assessment, but when he walks out, he probably should have because to that point they hadn't even talked about his book at all, 50 mins in!? does he really need to explain his views on his detractors yet again? i don't care after the first few exchanges.

sure o'reilly is a dick, and i'm familiar with 'fresh air', but it just wasn't an interesting interview on her part.. i could have done a better job. i don't plan on reading his book, and i would have liked to hear some analysis of it. surely she could have taken issue with o'reilly on aspects of the book. i don't care that the questions were "tough" (they weren't actually that tough anyway), but they weren't what i was hoping for.. i expect more from npr and fresh air. it should be a foum for more interesting discussion, imo.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
i've heard his pompousness and blow-hardedness before, and i saw the exchange between al franken and him live on c-span, it was pretty funny. if you think he lost his shit with terri groos, you should see that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that live too. I was trying to find that instead of the NPR clip but I couldn't find it. It is REALLY funny.
 
I just finished the interview on Fresh Air and I agree with Timmy. If I was him I would have walked too. He had an answer to all her questions, and his answers seemed reasonable to me. Listening to yours now Timmy, hope it is more eventfull ;o

Realplayer has got to be the lamest media player ever invented by man.
 
Its freaking retarded. I am sick of what our troops are going through and for what. To swoop in and mother a society that kills women for trying to educate themselvs. What we are doing is actually anticulltural to them. Not only did they hate us for what we do over hear but not thay hate for attempting to bring something so foriegn to their society. They have lived like this for hundreds of years and they think something will change because we go over :hmph: I am frustrated that this war or whatever they call it has taken so long.

I am alos irritated at how it effects us here at home. We have to worry about terrorist attacks we have to go through all kinds of lame crap at the airport, but wait its all worth it cause they (Iraq) want us over there helping them out. :flame:

All we should have done was go over there and help them get rid of sodom and then let them do what they need to.

Or use all the money we have spent to build educational systems and housing for any one who wants to come over here then lace the hell out of that place with percision operations.

Meh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
-smash-
Valve at GDC 2019
Replies
0
Views
25K
-smash-
-smash-
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top