"be quite and you might learn something"....HAHAHAHA

10/15/2010 2:54:16 PM

^ haha that was the best bit!

10/15/2010 3:03:21 PM

Quote :

"Because when you just say "muslims," you aren't making a distinction between the radicals and the non-radicals."

THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. he was pointing out the fucking religion of people who did something. He did not say it was representative of all muslims, and you don't have to make a fucking caveat every time you say the word "muslim." It's fuck absurd to suggest that one should.

He was asked why people might be unhappy about a mosque at a given place. Well, what religion does a mosque represent? Islam. What's the fucking connection between 9/11 and a mosque? Both involve muslims. Holy shit, pointing out the fucking obvious shouldn't yield outrage.

Quote :

"Was it violent rape? I thought he seduced her and had sex with her."

If by "seduced" you mean "drugged her with Quaalude," then, sure.

10/15/2010 3:04:15 PM

^ Thanks for the info. That's horrible... drugging a barely teen girl and raping her

Agreed about what you said about Muslims and the mosque.

10/15/2010 3:08:25 PM

^^ I don't have a problem with Bill O'Reilly, but I did see him on Glenn Beck rehasing the appearance and he did say something I disagree with. He was comparing 9/11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and how people don't say "Japanese extremists" so why should they say "Muslim extremists?"

That was a state sanctioned attack by a country who followed it with an all out declaration of war. It was't 10 or 15 or however many extremists but an entire country. Do you hold every single citizen accountable? No, of course not but the entire state did declare war.

This WAS an isolated and small subset of extremists who attacked the WTC.

There should be and is a huge distinction. The Japanese who fought during WWII were not anything close to a small minority of extremists. They were a country.

*** Would it be kosher for me to say that the Centennial Olympic Bombing was the time America was attacked brutally by Christianity? I mean as a Christian I don't how comfortable I would be hearing that.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM. Reason : x]

10/15/2010 3:16:23 PM

I'm glad and slightly surprised that you agree with me. I'd be all over O'Reilly if he were to espouse locking up any and all muslims. I'd be all over him like white on rice if he had said "Islam attacked America". But he didn't. He simply stated a fact in relation to a question about why something might offend someone. Granted, there are some assumptions that he didn't state, such as "some muslims attacked in the name of Allah," but given what we know about 9/11, I don't see it as being necessary to state those things. We know that radical muslims attacked us. We know that they are not representative of all of islam.

I mean, what's next? The next time the news reports that a black man robbed a store, does the anchor have to say "now, not all blacks rob stores or support violence"? The next time a black guy wins a basketball game with a last second shot, does the sports reporter have to say "not all blacks are good at sports?" The next time an white guy invents something, does the reporter have to say "not all white people are smart?" The next time I see a porn video with an asian girl shooting eels out of her pussy, does their have to be a disclaimer that "not all asians are weird, sexual perverts?"

Quote :

"He was comparing 9/11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and how people don't say "Japanese extremists" so why should they say "Muslim extremists?" That was a state sanctioned attack by a country who followed it with an all out declaration of war."

100% agree. fucking absurd analogy on GB's part, but what else do you expect from a crazy, former DJ?

Quote :

"Would it be kosher for me to say that the Centennial Olympic Bombing was the time America was attacked brutally by Christianity?"

Well, that would be equally pointless, as O'Reilly didn't say "Islam killed people on 9/11". Now, if you said "Christians attacked America in the 1996 Olympics," I'd ask "what the hell is the relevance to their religion in that case?" The relevance to 9/11 was obvious. Christianity to the olympic-bombing? It's far more tenuous.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 3:21:26 PM

Let me clarify. That was O'Reilly that said that. I usually find myself agreeing with him, so I was taken aback a bit that he would use that as some sort of "justification" for what he said on The View.

IMO, he didn't need to say anything. He didn't say anything out of line... and actually, you can strike my edit with the ***'s because you're correct, he didn't say "Islam attacked..." so the parallel I drew is offbase.

10/15/2010 3:23:57 PM

well, he had to say something in response to "why are people offended by a mosque." I mean, what else is he supposed to say? Nothing? There is a reason some people don't like it. Irrespective of whether or not that reasoning is valid, it's not heinous to point out what that reason is

10/15/2010 3:30:38 PM

i think there ought to be a law regarding how close a church can be to a scene of a crime

kinda like how strip clubs must be a certain distance from schools

10/15/2010 3:35:51 PM

what if a priest rapes a kid?

10/15/2010 3:37:01 PM

Quote :

"but given what we know about 9/11, I don't see it as being necessary to state those things."

Really? You REALLY don't think it's necessary to discern the difference between "radical muslims" and "muslims?" REALLY? You honestly think it's implied that he meant just radical muslims?

I guess you don't get out much and talk with some of the dumber people of this country who still think the attack was done in name by ALL muslims and who want to see ALL muslims dead, and who think that "they're all the same?"

Of course he should have said "muslim radicals" instead of just "muslims." It's called being concise. It's great that you knew instantly what he meant, but you can't claim that everyone should have known what he meant when he was being ambiguous.

Quote :

"they are not representative of all of islam."

There's a lot of people who believe the opposite of this.

Quote :

"I mean, what's next? The next time the news reports that a black man robbed a store, does the anchor have to say "now, not all blacks rob stores or support violence"? The next time a black guy wins a basketball game with a last second shot, does the sports reporter have to say "not all blacks are good at sports?" The next time an white guy invents something, does the reporter have to say "not all white people are smart?" The next time I see a porn video with an asian girl shooting eels out of her pussy, does their have to be a disclaimer that "not all asians are weird, sexual perverts?""

These examples are all irrelevant. Why? Because you're unable to tell the difference between singular and plural in English grammar. Bill didn't say "a Muslim" or "15 muslims." He said "muslims." Your examples are "a black guy" or "a white guy" or "an asian girl." It's impossible to take "a black guy" to mean "all black people." Had it been "black people robbed a store," then yes, the anchor needs to clarify what she means, otherwise, he/she comes off as nothing more than a bigot.

Lets go back to this:

Quote :

"Would it be kosher for me to say that Christians bombed Centennial Olympic Bombing was the time America was attacked brutally by Christianity?"

Is that better? Because that's exactly what Bill did.

Quote :

"Christianity to the olympic-bombing? It's far more tenuous."

Maybe they didn't like non-Christian countries participating in it?

Quote :

"The relevance to 9/11 was obvious."

Their religion isn't relevant. You people just want to make it relevant. The terrorists didn't attack Christians. They attacked America. And last time I checked, we consist of Christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, ect. But when you start thinking of the US as a "Christian" nation, I can see how people want to make things like religion relevant.

10/15/2010 4:02:34 PM

Quote :

"Their religion isn't relevant. You people just want to make it relevant. The terrorists didn't attack Christians. They attacked America. And last time I checked, we consist of Christians, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, ect. But when you start thinking of the US as a "Christian" nation, I can see how people want to make things like religion relevant."

That's not what aaronburro meant. He meant that the fact that the attackers were Muslims is relevant to their actions on 9/11. He was talking about the religion of the attackers, not the victims.

He is saying that while Christians attacked the Olympics, the fact that they were Christians had nothing to do with their attack. They just happened to be Christians, so there is no need to say they were Christians on the news. But the 9/11 attackers' religion is completely relevant to their actions.

10/15/2010 5:00:39 PM

Quote :

"That's not what aaronburro meant. He meant that the fact that the attackers were Muslims is relevant to their actions on 9/11. He was talking about the religion of the attackers, not the victims."

I'm well aware of what he meant. But even though they claimed they did it in the name of God, it should be clear that the basis of their attacks had very little to do with religion, but rather politics and hatred. They just wanted to use religion as a way of excusing their heinous actions.

10/15/2010 5:07:42 PM

Quote :

"I guess you don't get out much and talk with some of the dumber people of this country who still think the attack was done in name by ALL muslims and who want to see ALL muslims dead, and who think that "they're all the same?""

and those people aren't gonna be swayed either way.

Quote :

"But even though they claimed they did it in the name of God, it should be clear that the basis of their attacks had very little to do with religion, but rather politics and hatred."

not at all true. The hijackers, the people who actually carried out the attack, used their religion as a justification. The planners, the masterminds, used their religion as a tool to persuade others to do their bidding. Religion absolutely played a role. You are correct in asserting that politics played a role, but NOT for the hijackers. BTW, they didn't attack us out of "hatred." I hate that line.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 5:08:56 PM

They hate us because we let our women be whores.

10/15/2010 5:13:00 PM

they hate us because we're free

10/15/2010 5:40:00 PM

inorite

10/15/2010 5:59:54 PM

Quote :

"and those people aren't gonna be swayed either way."

No need to keep re-establishing these people's beliefs through what a popular talk show host, who every word that comes out of his mouth they take as gospel, says.

Quote :

"The planners, the masterminds, used their religion as a tool to persuade others to do their bidding."

I know. The motives of the hijackers are irrelevant. We don't care why they did it. They are nothing more than tools. We're more concerned with why Bin Laden did it and his accomplices.

10/15/2010 6:38:48 PM

The rage quit was a bit dramatic.

But they came back. And I think occasionally taking a step back, cooling off, and coming back to the discussion when you can be cordial isn't necessarily a bad thing.

10/15/2010 7:08:41 PM

they need to be in the kitchen (or 10 forward).

10/15/2010 8:09:02 PM

It's sad that this mosque bullshit is still being talked about. Of all the events that have taken place over the past few months, this shouldn't have registered as a blip on the radar screen, yet untold hours have been devoted towards "debating" this issue on major cable networks. It almost seems like television news media are trying to keep us as dumb as possible by tossing out these "hot button issues" for mass consumption.

10/15/2010 8:25:40 PM

If you live in the right part of Wake county, you'll have a chance to have her as your Representative:

10/15/2010 8:29:02 PM

Quote :

"No need to keep re-establishing these people's beliefs through what a popular talk show host, who every word that comes out of his mouth they take as gospel, says."

If they listen to Bill O'Reilly every day and haven't had their views challenged, then something is wrong. You clearly don't watch Bill if you don't know this.

Quote :

"The motives of the hijackers are irrelevant."

100% false in the realm of why people are upset. On the surface, people don't give a shit that the planners had political motives. The average guy probably doesn't know or even care. The average guy looks at it and says "The people on the planes who did the deed did so in the name of their religion, Islam" and thus naturally has an aversion to an Islamic place of worship near the site of the attack. It is 100% understandable, and that is why the motives of the people who actually did the deed are important. Policy-wise for the government, yes, it is irrelevant. For the common man, not so much.

Quote :

"But they came back. And I think occasionally taking a step back, cooling off, and coming back to the discussion when you can be cordial isn't necessarily a bad thing."

This is true, but they showed their ass on their own fucking show. That is absurd and they should have stayed the fuck off, because at that point, they've shown that they absolutely no interest in civil discourse. In civil discourse, you sit there and listen, no matter what the other person says, and then you respond civilly. You don't yell "THAT'S TOTAL BULL SHIT" and then storm off and come come back 5 minutes later when your producer says "get the fuck back on or else." These ladies acted like 2-year olds, and I'd actually give the edge to the youngsters in maturity if pressed to pick one over the other

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 9:05:22 PM

When will the point of the "mosque" every keeps talking about is not a Mosque but a community center that is four blocks away from the actual memorial site and you can't even see the site from the front of the building.

10/16/2010 10:11:40 AM

I don't understand why some people just let trolls get their way with the argument. I think after 8 or so years lurking and posting on TWW I can easily tell if an ass is trolling me in real life. Makes it so much easier to be able to tell when you're having a fair debate or whether you're talking to a wall and getting no where. I would never have walked off my own show or raised my voice, it only makes them look like silly women, instead they should have been able to control him, not start a yelling match, and have a real discussion, but then again they wouldn't be having all this attention about their show and a rating increase.

Plus I thought the whole Islamic Center in lower Manhattan discussion had died out. Aren't there real problems in the world to discuss?


[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason : damn, it'll be 9 years in January.... ]

10/16/2010 10:40:05 AM

the funniest part was oreilly seemed to genuinely enjoy being on that show throughout it at all, ah well I guess if a man comes on there and speaks his mind then they are all going to get bothered regardless

10/16/2010 3:02:16 PM

^I fucked your bitch fyi

10/16/2010 3:06:06 PM