TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bill O'Reilly calls for al-Qaida to target San Francisco
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bill O'Reilly calls for al-Qaida to target San Francisco - Page 2

post #31 of 55
oK THEN, ANY terrorists. I thought since this was about Al Queda it was a given that this is about Arab Terrorists. Not trying to offend here, I realize there are other terrorists out there.

I don't believe appeasment works with ANY terrorists.
post #32 of 55
I don't understand why my comments have made anyone suffer. I would feel the same about American terrorists.
What is wrong with my comments and what is wrong with my attitude?
Please clarify as I was surely not trying to offend all the millions of good Arabs or millions of good Muslims.

A tad off topic here, but my hero of my entire life and the role model I hold up to the entire human race happens to be the greatest Muslim of all times.
Mohammad Ali.
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^=
Some of the kids try to get rid of the recruiters by saying they are gay, but that is not a determent anymore -- they just get advice on how to get around it.
Conscientious Objector.

Have to register as one with the selective service, and if a draft is instituted, you're reassinged a position in education or health care in the community. I assume to take the place of someone else who was drafted.

Or, as I like to think of it: CO, that'll shut'em up.
post #34 of 55
*gets on soap box*

First off when I remember even thinking about joining the military (which I did, US Air Force) I remember being harassed by several recruiters in my area. Marines, Navy and Army. Even when I was a sophomore, I was getting phone calls. Maybe it didn't actually help that my father was inactive reserve (Now retired after 37 years of service) that they may have had my number. But you know what? I never gave them my number; they got it from my school. This was the norm. They were also there, at my high school every other month or so also. I saw the Army and Marines there about 2-3 times, Navy Twice and the Air Force once. I was interested in the Navy and they finally got me down, even had a guy there that was visiting that talked to me in a career field that I thought about working in. Yes it was semi aggressive. But you know what? That’s the norm (and even non-bias books that I read before approaching ANY recruiter said that, they do what they can to get you in). A month later I signed 3 forms and became delayed enlisted in the US Air Force. I have seen worse during my time then what’s reported. However, with an unpopular war, going on, it may seem more hostile. There have been some, which have been delt with and kicked out of service, but that has even happen in peace time. I know, I got my first AF recruiter transferred after saying a few things that caused my dad to call Recruitment Command. I even encountered a few recruiters that got my head to turn and spoke my mind (was called “comrade†by one because of a jacket I was wearing… minutes later he was apologizing) However, this is a volunteer military with no draft looming. No recruiter is forcing anyone with a gun to their head or doing anything special to get them in, unless it’s a guarantee job placement in the filed they want. And one other thing... Is it me or are most people/media thinking that you join the military today you are shipped out to Iraq after basic training? WRONG. I know quite a few active duty personal, including new recruits that haven't even touched the sands of Iraq or the hills of Afghanistan. And btw, I did enlist into the military during "war time" situation. I never saw combat, I never went to Iraq or Saudi or Kuwait. Nothing. However I did meet my enemy at the time and shook his hand, a Russian General in the Soviet Rocket Forces. That’s my 2 cents on this subject.

And regarding this statement that Bill Oâ€Reilly made on his November 8th show is WAY blown out of proportion. Seriously, Its obvious that a few people, including some in here are reading what was said, not how it was said. And if the far left in here actually want to hear what was actually said, you can actually go to his website and listen to it, that’s if they didn’t block the websites on their browsers, like foxnews.com. Bill has a big mouth. So does Colmes, so does Franken and so does Rush. Sorry, he wasn’t on some podium at the press club and saying that on TV telling someone to blow up a building in SF to get bombed. Sorry, didn’t happen. Know what? I work in Radio professionally. I get the daily newsletters. Not *one* single mention what was said on his show or the controversy that has been “sparkedâ€, nor caused any feathers to be ruffled. This has been once again, blown out of proportion, AGAIN by a few people in the press (MSNBC) and few other people out on the net—AGAIN.

On last thing…

If Bill O’Reilly is such a bad person or just a arrogant SOB, Then why has he been pushing for Megans Law? Or how about what was said November 11th on his show:
“Be that as it may, the issue this evening is helping the children of military people, who have been killed in the war on terror. So far, about 1,100 American children have lost a parent in Iraq, and hundreds of other kids have had parents killed in Afghanistan.
We believe the U.S. government should pay college education costs for those children. At a time when patriotic Americans are volunteering to protect their country against evil, the government should step up and look out for their kids.
So we're asking congressmen and senators to draft legislation and pass a bill providing college tuition to the children of slain military people. We owe it to those who have died in the struggle to help their kids. And "The Factor" urges our federal leaders to directly contact us if they believe that as well.
Remember, the 9/11 families received government assistance. So this is a fair and logical proposition. We also encourage you to contact your congresspeople and senators and urge them to back this proposed legislation.â€

(source: Fauxnews I mean FoxNews)


Yeah… that Bill… damn him to death… whatever…
post #35 of 55
Thank you Arg0. It says it all.

I love Bill O'Reilly because of the fact that he can dish it out to Republicans AND Democratss. And he does do that. He calls it like he sees it.

My main thing with him is his 1-man crusade against Pedophiles and toughening the laws against the monsters who harm our children.
I don't see anyone on CNN doing that.

His program is #1 in his genre. Can't argue with success.
post #36 of 55
Being against pedophiles is a good thing. Oprah has a program against pedophiles too. Then again, isn't everyone?
post #37 of 55
Registering as a CO doesn't really keep recruiters away though. Heck, I'm at a Quaker and Brethren seminary and we have recruiters come once a year!
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^=
Being against pedophiles is a good thing. Oprah has a program against pedophiles too. Then again, isn't everyone?
hE IS Actually doing something and is being proactive.

We all talk the talk, he also is trying to do something.
post #39 of 55
According to this evening;s news, the SF City Council is trying to pass a resolution, calling for Fox News to fire O'Reilly. Sounds as though they're advocating CENSORSHIP IMO.

Let someone suggest firing Ward Churchill or muzzling Michael Moore and people like the SF City Council are screaming "CENSORSHIP". I guess that they feel that only conservative or pro-Irag war speech should be sensored.
post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e
According to this evening;s news, the SF City Council is trying to pass a resolution, calling for Fox News to fire O'Reilly. Sounds as though they're advocating CENSORSHIP IMO.

Let someone suggest firing Ward Churchill or muzzling Michael Moore and people like the SF City Council are screaming "CENSORSHIP". I guess that they feel that only conservative or pro-Irag war speech should be sensored.
Hang on now, this seems like apples and concrete to me. There is a big difference between someone getting on the air and bashing S.F. (name-calling and all the crud that "shock-jock" types do, from O'Reilly to Moore) and getting on the air and saying go ahead and blow up the Coit tower, 'cause we won't stop you. Yes, it is going overboard to suggest he actually MEANT it, but I don't care if he meant it. As I said earlier, it was still inappropriate. And yes, people DO say inappropriate things all the time, but I don't accept that "that's life". If life is that way, it's because we MAKE it that way and we ALLOW it to be that way. I personally don't accept it, and choose to express my disapproval; perhaps if we all did that instead of saying "well, but . . ." we'd see fewer people saying uselessly hurtful and/or violent things just to "make a point". And that applies as much to Moore as to O'Reilly.
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
I'm sorry for this short thread hijack, but because of family circumstances, I can't refrain.


What about the non-Arab terrorists?
I only say this as the granddaughter of a 1st generation Arab-American and cousin to 3 beautiful children of an Iraqi immigrant-turned-American-citizen (my aunt converted to Islam and married an immigrant).
Because of comments and attitudes like that, towards Arabs, my grandfather, cousins, and aunt's husband have suffered.
THANK YOU! I hate HATE hate! that people are relentlessly bandying around "Arab Terrorists" bla bla bla. I, for one, have experienced relentless contact from recruiters since 9-11. They still call my parents house, after I've stated that I'm morally opposed to a war on islam in general. and that's what it is, really. The war is, I feel, inciting anti-islamic sentiments, and I, for one, having been raised islamic, do not support it. that is my choice. However, after 3 years, I can expect my parents to receive a recruiting call at least monthly.

Does this mean that I shouldn't be protected if my town is struck by a terrorist attack? I'm sorry, I thought we were free to beleive and support what we beleive in, and opt out of supporting what we don't!
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlecat
THANK YOU! I hate HATE hate! that people are relentlessly bandying around "Arab Terrorists" bla bla bla. I, for one, have experienced relentless contact from recruiters since 9-11. They still call my parents house, after I've stated that I'm morally opposed to a war on islam in general. and that's what it is, really. The war is, I feel, inciting anti-islamic sentiments, and I, for one, having been raised islamic, do not support it. that is my choice. However, after 3 years, I can expect my parents to receive a recruiting call at least monthly.

Does this mean that I shouldn't be protected if my town is struck by a terrorist attack? I'm sorry, I thought we were free to beleive and support what we beleive in, and opt out of supporting what we don't!

Very well-said!
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e
According to this evening;s news, the SF City Council is trying to pass a resolution, calling for Fox News to fire O'Reilly. Sounds as though they're advocating CENSORSHIP IMO.

Let someone suggest firing Ward Churchill or muzzling Michael Moore and people like the SF City Council are screaming "CENSORSHIP". I guess that they feel that only conservative or pro-Irag war speech should be sensored.
Boy isn't that the truth.


Like it or not it is Islamic Extremists that are the terrorists that blew up our World Trade Center, Pentagon, the London Bombing(s), the Madrid Bombings
and countless other. Shall we not fight against them?
Personally I feel the War on Terror is totally justified and should be fought as hard as we are able.

It is NOT a war on Islam. What exactly would you have us do if we do not fightt this War on Terror.
I am sorry if you as a follower of Islam are being discriminated against, I really am. But it does not change the facts of what are.
Now they are at it in Jordan, and a woman suicide bomber to boot.
post #44 of 55
Does anyone else find any irony in that Coit Tower is a monument to S.F. Firefighters, yet O'Reilly is willing to let Al Queda destroy it?
post #45 of 55
If you REALLY believe that, then I feel sorry for you.
That you can read something so ridiculous into what he was
trying to say. Whatever.
Personally, I have a bigger problem with the people that are not willing to stand up for our country and defend it from the Monsters that want to destroy us.
the leader of Iran just said it last week. He wants The United States and Israel both to be utterly destroyed.
Guess we should just sit back and let it happen, no?
post #46 of 55
For everyone who is saying that he "called for SF to be attacked", as is the erroneous and misleading title of the thread, and as is, um, kind of, reported in that story - have any of you actually listened to more than the quote that was taken out of context and is incomplete at best? The pertinent quotes are in O'Reilly's Talking Point Memo from two days ago: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175597,00.html
post #47 of 55
It always amazes me when people take one little sentence and run with it.
Don't people want the entire story so they can be informed? Guess not.
It is all opinion.
Bill O'Reilly is great in my book.
post #48 of 55
I have to ask. Do you understand how and why Al-Qaida have such control over the masses in the middle east?
Assume for a moment that you are living in a third world country, where the government is too corrupt to assure you proper education, food, healthcare, and this is .. 50-75 years ago. The only group willing to make sure you don't starve and die is a religious sect, and they will offer healthcare, schooling, and food for you and your family if you join them. After 50-75 years of that, after 3 generations, it's all your family knows anymore. I'm not saying that it's an excuse for terrorism, but I am asking why it took so long for the us to step in and give aid to those families before they were taken under the wing of religious radicals. At this point, the people that are doing the attacks feel that it is US that is oppressing them, and that the only way to help their people, and the only way to do allah's will is to preform a jyhad on the american people.
I think there were better ways to go around this whole war than to use military escalation. Clearly, the further we go to fight them, the more they will do to fight back. We've known about the situation in the middle east for decades and it seems to me that the only way that the US knows how to solve any issue is to go there with guns and bombs and attack not only the people involved, the people that KNOW what they're doing isn't right- but we're also ruining the lives of millions of innocent people that are just trying to survive in a destitute and undereducated land. Also, reports are now dismissing the female in the bombings, which I beleive is correct. Al-Qaida is very strict on female involvement, beleiving that such things are not for women to be involved in. I simply cannot beleive that there would be a female operative involved.
I simply think that it's outrageous to basically threaten/attack the rights of the people because they're trying to excercise their right to disagree. I also think that once I said "Hey, no thanks, I would not like to go military. It's against my beleifs" I shouldn't be called again about it. If I change my mind, I know where the heck the draft offices are in my town. They give you that information readily.
I think that the only time recruiters should be present is on career day, or when asked to speak about the military by either a civics or US history class. Even, I think, I t would be appropriate to have an assembly for the junior and senior classmen to get all the propaganda once a year. To be standing in the hallways during student lunch hours and calling out to FRESHMEN and SOPHOMORES is a little over the top in my mind. I think that controlling the amount of contact the recruiters have to spend with the students will not only make their time more effective, but it will also prevent this kind of worry by parents and school personnel. And it is a valid concern that the community should be allowed to address without criticism from an outside source, especially to the degree of "Oh, if you don't want us to draft your kids while they're in school, then we won't give a da*n if you get blown up."
That was, to my mind, a bit out of line.
post #49 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
If you REALLY believe that, then I feel sorry for you.
That you can read something so ridiculous into what he was
trying to say. Whatever.
Personally, I have a bigger problem with the people that are not willing to stand up for our country and defend it from the Monsters that want to destroy us.
the leader of Iran just said it last week. He wants The United States and Israel both to be utterly destroyed.
Guess we should just sit back and let it happen, no?
Actually you bring up a good point. One of the reasons that led me to make this post was because of the remark the President of Iran with regards to him calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Such statements, has been pretty much their official line for the past 20 years. But it is pretty much a hollow statement given the impossibility of them actually carrying out the threat due to them not even sharing the same border and the state of their respective militaries. Basically, it is a statement for his "domestic" support. They have a number of these type of statements such as threatening not to trade/sell oil to anyone connected with US yet they turn around to companies coming from US allies and effectively tell them not to worry but carry on business as usual.

So why the uproad? It is just words is it not? Yes BUT words carry with it the potential for hate and that why should we accept people who are grandstanding and talking about violence even if they have no means of carrying it out or do not really mean it. Whenever we see people resorting to such use of violent words to make a point which could just as been easily and effectively made without resort to such crude violent reference, we should object to it.

One reason for not really talking about the SF proposition is because as stated earlier, it does not really changes anything and nothing is banned as the military can still recruit. But more importantly, even if one disagrees with the SF proposition that does not mean that we must accept everything said in opposition. Most of us here support protection of animals but a good number of us are against PETA's actions. Why? It is because we are objecting to the way the message is presented, which we feel is wholly inappropriate.

And THAT is what this post is about. Standing up against such threats or analogy of violence even if the person did not really mean to cause violence.
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlecat
I have to ask. Do you understand how and why Al-Qaida have such control over the masses in the middle east?
Assume for a moment that you are living in a third world country, where the government is too corrupt to assure you proper education, food, healthcare, and this is .. 50-75 years ago. The only group willing to make sure you don't starve and die is a religious sect, and they will offer healthcare, schooling, and food for you and your family if you join them. After 50-75 years of that, after 3 generations, it's all your family knows anymore. I'm not saying that it's an excuse for terrorism, but I am asking why it took so long for the us to step in and give aid to those families before they were taken under the wing of religious radicals. At this point, the people that are doing the attacks feel that it is US that is oppressing them, and that the only way to help their people, and the only way to do allah's will is to preform a jyhad on the american people.
I think there were better ways to go around this whole war than to use military escalation. Clearly, the further we go to fight them, the more they will do to fight back. We've known about the situation in the middle east for decades and it seems to me that the only way that the US knows how to solve any issue is to go there with guns and bombs and attack not only the people involved, the people that KNOW what they're doing isn't right- but we're also ruining the lives of millions of innocent people that are just trying to survive in a destitute and undereducated land. Also, reports are now dismissing the female in the bombings, which I beleive is correct. Al-Qaida is very strict on female involvement, beleiving that such things are not for women to be involved in. I simply cannot beleive that there would be a female operative involved.
I simply think that it's outrageous to basically threaten/attack the rights of the people because they're trying to excercise their right to disagree. I also think that once I said "Hey, no thanks, I would not like to go military. It's against my beleifs" I shouldn't be called again about it. If I change my mind, I know where the heck the draft offices are in my town. They give you that information readily.
I think that the only time recruiters should be present is on career day, or when asked to speak about the military by either a civics or US history class. Even, I think, I t would be appropriate to have an assembly for the junior and senior classmen to get all the propaganda once a year. To be standing in the hallways during student lunch hours and calling out to FRESHMEN and SOPHOMORES is a little over the top in my mind. I think that controlling the amount of contact the recruiters have to spend with the students will not only make their time more effective, but it will also prevent this kind of worry by parents and school personnel. And it is a valid concern that the community should be allowed to address without criticism from an outside source, especially to the degree of "Oh, if you don't want us to draft your kids while they're in school, then we won't give a da*n if you get blown up."
That was, to my mind, a bit out of line.
So, I really hope you are not saying it is OUR fault we got attacked by Al Queda?
50-75 years ago. My dear, 60 years ago we saved the world.
What more could be asked of us?
These recruiters have every right to be recruiting in the PUBLIC schools.
The public schools are just that - public and federally funded.
Why the bashing of our beloved military?
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
So, I really hope you are not saying it is OUR fault we got attacked by Al Queda?
50-75 years ago. My dear, 60 years ago we saved the world.
What more could be asked of us?
These recruiters have every right to be recruiting in the PUBLIC schools.
The public schools are just that - public and federally funded.
Why the bashing of our beloved military?
How disturbingly egocentric
Who exactly is "we"?
FYI, It was a WORLD war.
I feel badly that Americans get a bad rap as thinking they are the centre of the universe but its thoughts like these that perpetuate it.
post #52 of 55
No where in this thread did I insult anyone of the Muslim faith.
I think we should ALL, every one of us in this country and I don't care what your faith or non-faith is, should be grateful to the military for fighting for the freedoms we have.
post #53 of 55
I personally feel, IMO, that if the US had not entered WWII, we would all be under the Nazi regime. That is only my opinion. Such is why I said, "we saved the world" I realize we had help. But when the US entered WWII, things were not going well for the good guys.
post #54 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I personally feel, IMO, that if the US had not entered WWII, we would all be under the Nazi regime. That is only my opinion. Such is why I said, "we saved the world" I realize we had help. But when the US entered WWII, things were not going well for the good guys.
Not that this is really relevant to the thread at hand but 80% of Nazi casualties came from the Eastern (USSR) front.
post #55 of 55
I'd like to point out that this whole thread is WAY off topic. The issue is how we all feel about what Bill O'Reilly said. There is a separate thread to discuss how we feel about military recruitment on school campuses, and there is a separate thread on whether or not a war or this war is justified (that one is old, called The TCS War Poll, I think). Either of these two issues are certainly relevent as background to explain WHY Bill O'Reilly said what he did, but I don't think it is on topic for us to debate whether his beliefs are valid. There have been several posts that are on topic that have been sort of lost in the fray. Could we get back to those? For instance, #40 and #49.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bill O'Reilly calls for al-Qaida to target San Francisco