Let's discuss Bill O'Reilly

You may want to check your numbers.The British 4 years ago that the mass graves claim was untrue.
PM admits graves claim 'untrue' | Politics | The GuardianAnd if we apply your logic as to why Saddam should be removed, we should invade a variety of countries, from Russia, Pakistan, China to several African countries.And what makes you think that military is the only way to solve terrorism?

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

Yes. Critical mass applies.

---

Indeed.And since nobody of any consequence ever claimed that the terrorist attacks were an American/Zionist plot, we should not be surprised to find that legitimate news organizations paid it no heed while sensationlist enterprises like Fox in general and O'Reilly in specific decided to go with it.Bill O'Reilly Meltdown ResurfacesSeriously...what sort of media professional doesn't know what "play us out" means?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

The Libs 50 years ago and today are two different animals.

---

Indeed. The Cons have so shifted the political discourse to the right that there is no such thing as "liberal" in the United States. There is only "not quite as conservative."

quote:

---

Better you examine what other countries did to their prisoners if you want to retreat 50 years

---

We're not talking about other countries. We're talking about the United States.Torture was OKed by conservatives, not liberals.

quote:

---

If you know history, 9/11 was a 100 times worse than 12/7

---

Says who? Surely you're not going to do something stupid and simply compare body counts, are you?

quote:

---

and Bush showed unbelievable restraint.

---

Huh? What are we doing in Iraq if Bush was showing restraint? Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.

quote:

---

In many countries, this broadcaster would be banned and be on trial.

---

Indeed. If O'Reilly were to be broadcasting in the UK, he'd be in jail on slander charges so fast it would make his head spin. Fortunately for him, we have the First Amendment, no matter how much he, like the conservative movement in general, hates the Constitution.

quote:

---

The past 30 years not invading Iraq was the crime.

---

Huh? We were the ones who installed Hussein in Iraq. It was the conservatives that did it. Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, and Donald Rumsfeld were the ones. Are you saying that they made a mistake? Are you saying they're liberal?

quote:

---

You forgot to say the UN issued 17 Resos, the issue was WMD

---

You forgot that the inspectors had complete access to everything, any time they wanted, including surprise inspections and were reporting back that there was nothing to find.All intelligence out of Iraq said there were no WMDs, no program to create them.

quote:

---

That France and many European states hid under its bunkers again

---

Huh? You mean behaving like adults and not invading a country unprovoked, especially a country that was battered and beaten, couldn't mount a defense, and was of absolutely no threat is "hiding"?Is that the only way you can justify yourself? Kicking puppies?

quote:

---

due to the oil scandal

---

Huh? You mean the oil-for-food scandal that the United States was participating in?

quote:

---

a crime those countries also perpertrated with not going to Vietnam against Stalinist communism

---

Huh? So when Vietnam kicked out France, it was because France was engaged in a "crime" but when Vietname kicked out the US, it was because we were...what, exactly?

quote:

---

it was primarilly Europe's war and responsibility.

---

Then what, precisely, were we doing in Southeast Asia? If it wasn't our war and wasn't our responsibility, why did we send so many Soldiers to die in vain?Oh, yes...it was a Democrat who got us involved. So choose your words carefully...you just said that it was a crime not to go into Vietnam. So that must mean that JFK's and Johnson's entry into Vietname were the noble things to do and Nixon's withdrawal that was the crime.When you figure out what your argument is, please let us know.

quote:

---

Your statement of ridicule US *INVADED* Iraq

---

What was it if not an invasion? Iraq posed no threat and had not attacked. It is our troops in their country having found themselves there at the end of guns, overthrowing their government and taking over.How is that not "invasion"? If it had happened in reverse, which you seem to think is an imminent threat, if it had been Hussein that had launched attacks on the US unprovoked, sent troops onto our soil, captured our President, and sent him to his death, what would you call it?

quote:

---

If you forgot which channel exposed 50 sleeper cells in US

---

(*chuckle*)You really believe that, don't you?By the way, the latest study of how informed people are by the source of their news just came out.Fox News is no longer in last place. They're ahead of "Network morning shows" and behind "Local TV News."Number 1?The Daily Show/Colbert Report.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

And since nobody of any consequence ever claimed that the terrorist attacks were an American/Zionist plot

---

Lol. Where have you been hiding.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

Where have you been hiding.

---

In reality where surfaces don't have volumes.Where are your sources? You're the one making the claim, therefore you're the one that needs to prove it.Exactly who other than the tinfoil hat brigade was saying the terrorist attacks were a government/zionist plot?By the way: To take such a claim seriously would damage your insistence that we should have gone into Iraq. If the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, if they were, indeed, a government/zionist plot, then there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq.Why would Fox be taking seriously claims that undermine their stated reasons for invading Iraq?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Torture was OKed by conservatives, not liberals.

---

I'd say, US would be the least involved in torture of any war/terror scenario today. But US is an open society and everything bops up, and is highlighted. Thus I say to those who accuse, show me your resume how you've equally rebelled about torture in other countries - even where war was not the event? Blank resumes shout loudest. i would say, despite those terrible pictorials in Iraq, US would have behaved very honorably all things considered.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know history, 9/11 was a 100 times worse than 12/7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Says who? Surely you're not going to do something stupid and simply compare body counts, are you?

---

Ok, I won't give you body counts. How about a few degrees lower than a nuke attack in America's heartline, aimed at civilians only - as opposed the military base in PH? Still too stupid for you?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and Bush showed unbelievable restraint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? What are we doing in Iraq if Bush was showing restraint? Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.

---

BS! Hussain was engaged in a nuke program, dished out lottery sized rewards to suicide bombers, invaded Kuwait, possessed WMD, challenged 17 UN Reso's, murdered journalists w/o trials, genocided Kurds and 100s of 1000s of Iraqis on whims, boasted 100% voting success for 25 years, and was an Al Qaiada in process. The crime is that all this occured under the noses of the EU, UN and the Arab states. But you are looking for a particular colored needle in a haystack with polka dots on it.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many countries, this broadcaster would be banned and be on trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Indeed. If O'Reilly were to be broadcasting in the UK, he'd be in jail on slander charges so fast it would make his head spin. Fortunately for him, we have the First Amendment, no matter how much he, like the conservative movement in general, hates the Constitution.

---

The reverse is the facts. In US, legal actions have become rampant, while UK media is a shambles - the term militants was only replaced with terrorists when London was bombed - even then, reluctantly.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The past 30 years not invading Iraq was the crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? We were the ones who installed Hussein in Iraq.

---

I know of this infamous nonesense, its been flogged by all the desperates. Fact is, US backed parties in the M/E & Afghanistan against encroaching communism, same as with S. Korea & Vietnam. It has no connection with the terrorism and regime attrocities which emerged when the cold war was over. Your score thus far is two blatant, selective distortions, and my guess is it surely won't end here.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot to say the UN issued 17 Resos, the issue was WMD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

You forgot that the inspectors had complete access to everything, any time they wanted, including surprise inspections and were reporting back that there was nothing to find.

​

All intelligence out of Iraq said there were no WMDs, no program to create them.

---

No and No. In the pivotal stages, the inspectors left in disgust; their conclusions were non-conclusive. US acted after the last 3 Reso's fully acknowledged and incorporated its actions. Show me your resume how far did Sadaam go before attacking Kuwait - was there much deliberation at the UN? Score is #3.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That France and many European states hid under its bunkers again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? You mean behaving like adults and not invading a country unprovoked, especially a country that was battered and beaten, couldn't mount a defense, and was of absolutely no threat is "hiding"?

​

Is that the only way you can justify yourself? Kicking puppies?

---

Why is US not attacking other *PUPPIES*? The EU states had no such forebearence about not attacking, except they were steeped to their eye balls in corruption with Sadaam. And Sadaam being a puppy is only a retrospective brilliance. And unprovoked? Maybe there is no terrorism anywhere - its all a fiction - you gotta catch the bunny only after the fat lady sings - if your still alive?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
due to the oil scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? You mean the oil-for-food scandal that the United States was participating in?

---

Yes. And you made remarkable use of the term 'participating' here.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a crime those countries also perpertrated with not going to Vietnam against Stalinist communism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? So when Vietnam kicked out France, it was because France was engaged in a "crime" but when Vietname kicked out the US, it was because we were...what, exactly?

---

France & Europe had every obligation to confront communism - which began in its backyard; US had far less. This war had nothing to do with oil - the desperation placebo; no excuse for Europe to hide in this instant. # 4.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it was primarilly Europe's war and responsibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Then what, precisely, were we doing in Southeast Asia? If it wasn't our war and wasn't our responsibility, why did we send so many Soldiers to die in vain?

​

Oh, yes...it was a Democrat who got us involved. So choose your words carefully...you just said that it was a crime not to go into Vietnam. So that must mean that JFK's and Johnson's entry into Vietname were the noble things to do and Nixon's withdrawal that was the crime.

​

When you figure out what your argument is, please let us know.

---

That issue was not about domestic parties, but about not seeing the world become communist. Democrasy's protection incurs a cost factor. No oil in this case, remember? # 5.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your statement of ridicule US *INVADED* Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

What was it if not an invasion? Iraq posed no threat and had not attacked. It is our troops in their country having found themselves there at the end of guns, overthrowing their government and taking over.

​

How is that not "invasion"? If it had happened in reverse, which you seem to think is an imminent threat, if it had been Hussein that had launched attacks on the US unprovoked, sent troops onto our soil, captured our President, and sent him to his death, what would you call it?

---

No invasion, as with Sadaam upon Kuwait, or as in Burma. In fact, hardly, if US is manouvering its exit at this time. #6.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you forgot which channel exposed 50 sleeper cells in US
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

(*chuckle*)

​

You really believe that, don't you?

​

By the way, the latest study of how informed people are by the source of their news just came out.

​

Fox News is no longer in last place. They're ahead of "Network morning shows" and behind "Local TV News."

​

Number 1?

​

The Daily Show/Colbert Report.

---

Yes, # 1 in cable news. CNN is a western Al Jazeera. And yes - chuckle about sleeper cells - they lead to mass murders in Bali, Madrid, London, Israel, India, Thailand - not counting the near misses by the 1000's. Chuckle that in your blank resume.

quote:

---

Exactly who other than the tinfoil hat brigade was saying the terrorist attacks were a government/zionist plot?

---

There is reality - and there is reality of denial. Some 300 books of your favourite subject in denial are best sellers across Europe and the islamic world; billions of europeans and muslims hold it as a fact 9/11 was a US/Zionist fix.This stuff is rampant and one of the 100s of sci-fi dished out as historical, sacred truths - including that there was no Jewish temple in Jerusalem, Moses and JC were muslim Palestinians, the long admitted falsehoods of blood libels and the Protocols taught in schools as history, etc, etc, etc. You hold on to your reality and I'll pass.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

I'd say, US would be the least involved in torture of any war/terror scenario today.

---

Irrelevant. We're not supposed to torture people. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

quote:

---

How about a few degrees lower than a nuke attack in America's heartline, aimed at civilians only - as opposed the military base in PH?

---

Why does that make it worse? Soldiers' lives aren't important?And "nuke attack"? Surely you're comparing an airplane to a nuke, are you?

quote:

---

Hussain was engaged in a nuke program,

---

Incorrect. There was no nuclear program. If you have evidence, bring it forward. Your claim, your burden of proof.Given that Bush, himself, has directly stated that there was no nuclear program in Iraq, how are you going to reconcile your claim that he's right with his claim that you're wrong?

quote:

---

and was an Al Qaiada in process.

---

Incorrect. There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you have evidence, bring it forward. Your claim, your burden of proof.Given that Bush, himself, has directly stated that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, how are you going to reconcile your claim that he's right with his claim that you're wrong?It is irrelevant to insist that Hussein was an evil dictator. By this logic, we should have invaded China and Russia and North Korea by now. But, we haven't. Are you saying it is a crime that we haven't?

quote:

---

It has no connection with the terrorism and regime attrocities which emerged when the cold war was over.

---

Who do you think we were funding in Afghanistan's fight against the Soviets?That's right: Osama bin Laden.And why did Osama bin Laden attack the United States?Because we had a base in Saudi Arabia.How does one come to the conclusion that these things are not connected?

quote:

---

In the pivotal stages, the inspectors left in disgust

---

Irrelevant. They went back. At the time Bush declared the invasion, the inspectors were in Iraq and televised the destruction of missiles that violated the disarmament treaty.You seem to think that 2003 was identical to 1998. Are you seriously claiming nothing changed?

quote:

---

Why is US not attacking other *PUPPIES*?

---

Yes. Iraq had no army to speak of, no defensive capabilities, and no WMD program. There were as defenseless as puppies. Why do you think it was a good idea to kick it?

quote:

---

And unprovoked?

---

Iraq had not attacked the US. Why, then, did we invade? How is that not the precise definition of "unprovoked"?

quote:

---

Maybe there is no terrorism anywhere

---

Huh? There isn't a murder taking place in your room right now, I would presume. Does that mean there are no murders taking place anywhere?Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. So why did we invade? Why not Saudi Arabia? After all, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

Yes. And you made remarkable use of the term 'participating' here.

---

Since the US was part and parcel of the oil-for-food scandal, how do we justify complaining about our partners in it?

quote:

---

France & Europe had every obligation to confront communism

---

So it was good for France to get involved in Vietnam? And when they kicked out the French, it was because France was engaged in a "crime" but when they kicked us out, it was because we were...what, precisely?Now explain why the US invaded Iraq, a country that was no threat, had not attacked us, and was not producing anything that could be considered a threat or used as an attack.

quote:

---

Yes, # 1 in cable news.

---

That'd be CNN.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

billions of europeans and muslims hold it as a fact 9/11 was a US/Zionist fix.

---

Prove it. Names, dates, full quotes in complete context, please.Hint: There aren't a billion Europeans in the first place.Hint: Just because Fox says there are lots of people who believe it doesn't mean there are.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I just had to grab this.Books/movies about 9/11 conspiracies are not popular here in europe. I did notice they did say that on Fox a couple times. Its not true though.And yes, there a lot of books concerning 9/11 conspiracies, but they are not bestsellers, not in any way. They dont get any media attention.All over europe, be it france, sweden, denmark, the UK, spain and so forth, we laugh a 9/11 conspiracies, but we do also laught at people like you.Because you do the exact same thing as twoofers. You already KNOW the TRUTH, and no matter how sucky your 'evidence' is, no matter how good your opponents evidence is, you just cling to your TRUTH.I do know one or two guys who are "twoofers", but they get laughed at.On another note, in a previous post in this thread you suggest that Saddam gave people rewards for 'suicide bombing'Really? Who's dumb enough to even consider that? "Oooh i get 10.000$? And all i have to do is kill my self? Ok, ill be right back for the money, i just gotta to blow my self up".They get the money before hand? Their family gets the money? What?

Europe condones those funny falsehoods by, you said it, its silence. Now i ask you - the Protocols and blood libels are pervasive in islamist states - even TV serials are made of them - also broadcast in Europe. Now lets says Europe calls it freedom of speech. But I ask you - when Europe long ago, but after a very long time [many centuries of allowing them to stand], acknowledged these were horrific fakes which took the lives of 100s of 1000s of innocent people: should Europe be silent of it - seeing that these emerged from its own backyards? What about freedom of speech to denounce falsehoods? What about the truth will set you free? What about the VE VERE NOT AVARE syndrome? Think it over honestly, and tell me what and who condones, fosters and legitimises global terror by silence. Think about it if an arguement can be made that Europe caused 9/11 - now that's an idea for a best seller!I see you are also confused about sadaam dishing out lottery sized rewards to suicide bombers. Wow!

Talking about these silly conspiracies are, ofcourse, legal. So is denouncing them. Which happens alot. Like i said, we (I can ofcourse only speak for my self, not all europeans) laugh.Theres no need to do anything else. Why give these morons the attention they want?Why should we waste our airtime with these conspiracies? Most educated people see them for what they are, lies.And actually, newspapers and news shows do, but rarely, mention these conspiracies. They mention them.. well.. for the lulz.
These conspiracies is not beeing taken seriously in europe. You have to understand that.How did this emerge from europes backyard? As far as i know, the USA's foreign policy is the cause of the 9/11 attacks. As reverend Wright said; "The chickens are coming home to roost".If you think thats foolish, you should read up on your history.Again, just so you get it in your head;
The 9/11 conspiracies are not widely believed nor promoted in Europe.
We are not silent about them. If any one seriously claim that it was an 'insider job', the media WILL put them down.Have you ever been in europe?Maybe i am confused about Saddam, suicide bombers and the lottery. How about you enlighten me?Sources to your claims?
"hurdurr fox said it" or what?

quote:

---

How did this emerge from europes backyard? As far as i know, the USA's foreign policy is the cause of the 9/11 attacks. As reverend Wright said; "The chickens are coming home to roost".

​

If you think thats foolish, you should read up on your history.

---

Blood libels and the protocols are made in Europe - thus there is an onus it cleanses its mess. The Pope and the danes missed out on a great op to site these racist slogans in Arabia - when it was whiplashed for meagre cartoon satire - but I guess it did not occur to them.USA policy has been too lopsided out of a forebearence - thus the war on terror grows - with much fstering from the EU. The chicks are coming home to roost - mostly in Eurostan. Don't worry - the US of A will again save you - then Europe can again blame America.

Sound like he should have his own church!

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

By this statement you AGREE that we are invaded Iraq. So if the past 30 years not invading Iraq was the real crime, however no Americans died on that soil, how have the last 4 years been when the death toll of US soldiers is now +4000?

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies