O'Reilly ignores right-wing Muslim smears, calls "far-left loons" "despicable" for politicizing Ft. Hood shooting
November 06, 2009 9:00 pm ET
From the November 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
If you can link this man to terrorism then it is all the evidence you need to say, "this President has not kept us safe. He has brought terrorism back to our shores."
The folks and readers at MMfA are hoping you and your ilk make such a desperate move.
yet, oreilly claims because 640 american soldiers, and that it is supposedly not as intense, means that nobody should feel some kind of mental trauma, or even worse, PTSDD of any sort. what does the number of soldiers died even have anything to do with it? war is traumatic regardless of how many of our soldiers die. and, as always, oreilly always make himself part of the story somehow, in this case bringing up his inciting of the murder of dr. tiller (according to oreilly, "tiller the baby killer). its always about you, bill, isnt it? you always have to be involved.
what a despicable analysis... and if we're talking about using political tragedy to ram home political points, what did the far-right conservatives do after 9/11? hell, even to this day, they still bring up how we might have another 9/11 if we dont torture or keep gitmo open and plenty of baseless claims.
and i love how at the end he claims the guy is either a "muslim terrorist" or a "crazy person"? really, bill? just like that... all cut and dry, huh? boy, would i love to live in your black and white world (not really). by the way, how can he be a "muslim terrorist" if he was a part of the united states military?
PTSD*
I don't see any "politicization" at all. If someone murders someone else or many others, we have a right to know why. Informing the public of the "why" in this case isn't "politicizing".
For example, is it not important to know that the Columbine shooters did what they did because of alleged bullying?
Very true indeed, and what is wrong with pointing out that the killer was a Muslim who was shouting "Allahu Akbar " as he was killing innocent people, an expression used by terrorists many times. Is that a right wing smear? MMFA seems to think it is wrong for people to point out the Muslim connection and possible terrorism connection. Why do the hypocrites at MMFA ignore that fact?
"I don't see any "politicization" at all"
Newspapers who use the incident to criticise policy doesn't count as politicization? O'Reilly was quoting newpapers and magazines who were politicizing the issue. Perhaps their intent was not observed by you.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the killer was a Muslim shouting "Allah Akbar". I don't see any source that tried to hide that fact. Nor do I see any non-opinion reports criticizing policy and blaming the war for this man's actions.
Pointing out those facts is not a smear. Saying that we need to profile (and in some cases fire) Muslims in our army and put the general Muslim-American population in internment camps, and insinuate that we are at war with Islam because of this man's actions IS a smear AND politicization.
You often criticize Media Matters for not providing WHOLE contexts. O'Reilly does the same thing here. If Fort Hood is facing the strain of deployments, perhaps that's relevant, since this is where the man worked.
The only "intent" I saw was to investigate WHY this man did what he did. That's all.
Nor do I think we should profile Muslims because of terrorist attacks. And no, it's not because I don't care about the American people.
I don't see how not smearing Muslims and Islam counts as using a tragedy to criticize the wars.
Where was the religious angle when Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez was accused of murdering two officers in 2005?
Where was the religious angle when Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich was accused of killing two fellow soldiers in 2008?
Where was the religious angle when Sgt. John M. Russell was accused of shooting five of his fellow soldiers in May of this year?
I don't recall, nor can I find, any media source ever mentioning the religious affiliation of any of these men, much less citing it as a factor in their actions. Even if they did, I guarantee it pales in comparison to the massive campaign of xenophobia we see playing out amongst rabid right wingers over the Fort Hood tragedy.
There are other reasons for this incident. The authorities have to determine what they were.
yes, because not every muslim is going to be a terrorist... just as every white person is not a member of the KKK.
when did they ignore it? did they say that every muslim is not a terrorist? sure they are, but not every one of them. i bet not even a majority of muslim's are terrorists in this world or believe in violence.
unfortunately, that is the mislabeling that has been put on them for so many years. because of that, most americans have a preconceived notion in their head that links muslim's and terrorists, and, as a result, they are discriminated against on a daily basis. how do you think this individual felt when he was the victim of a hate crime back in august? his car was keyed and a sticker on the back of his car labeled "allah is love" was torn off. that was his private property, and it should have been treated with respect. and it was done by a fellow soldier of his who probably hated the muslim religion. how do you expect someone to react to that? he could go tell his general about it, but everyone would simply oppose his freedom of religion and make him feel like a fool.
No one is hiding the fact that the man is a Muslim and that his psychotic break most likely had to do with his religion, but the folks on Fox and people like YOU are trying to make this out to be something it wasn't.
The folks who used terrorist tactics in the last administration [fear of violence to coerce conformation to a political or religious viewpoint] convinced you that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. That continues to be the meme pushed by your heroes at Fox.
O'Reilly was projecting.
Tiller murder? No motive. That was just a crazy person!
9/11? Jihadists.
Oklahoma City bombing? No motive. That was just a crazy person!
Richard Reed attempt? Jihadist.
Etc.
For someone who is so keen on personal responsibility, O'Reilly sure seems to be espousing a world-view that removes responsibility from anyone save the person who pulls the trigger. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Bill.
I guess you didn't listen.
But are you suggesting that the 9/11 and Reed incidents were not terrorist actions? And did you hear O'Reilly say that the Tiller killing was motiveless?
I can see how that would lead to republicans thinking that mandated discrimination may be necessary to ensure that differences are pointed out for everyone to see. Nothing binds a unit together like ostracizing a few select members just because they have different religion or skin color or sexual orientation. Im sure that would go a long way to preventing such things - forget about better access to mental health facilities or screening of those with past mental instability or better ways to ensure tolerance and acceptance of the differences of other soldiers.
Who needs that progressive nonsense when we can haphazardly target an entire religion and thousands of officers based on the actions of a single person? Were white christians with military backgrounds and an obsessive interest in weapons all forced to undergo screenings after oklahoma city? Were white rural suburban teenagers who play violent video games all forced to undergo psychiatric treatment after columbine? I must have missed those. We don't even force those who preach violence in public forums to undergo psychiatric treatment unless beck is currently in a psych hospital.
Actually those reports may very well be baseless, do you have any evidence. And Fox did address those issues.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572588,00.html
And his aunt says he wanted out of the military since 2001, why didn't he leave if that were true. Enlistments don't last 8 years.
"Wo needs that progressive nonsense when we can haphazardly target an entire religion and thousands of officers based on the actions of a single person"
Single person? This is not the first incident of Muslim service personnel attacking their fellow soldiers. You seem to forget that. You also seem to forget that whole tactic of "sleeper cells" that the jihadists seem to like.
When you are in school, becoming a doctor, those years don't give you the credit you assume they do towards completing your enlistment!
Sure there may be such things but; to decide that Hassan was part of a sleeper cell would border on, dare I say it, CRAZY.
Again, the worst thing about this tragedy is that instead of gathering together to support the people who were injured, or the family of those who were killed, we will use it as a means to push our own personal and political views.
FOX said the claim was baseless but how many military officers make claims that they are being harassed, pursue the claim and go on to tell family members that they are thinking about leaving the military because of the harassment? I mean if it was just some report filed away, I would say it may be baseless but tthe fact that he clearly discussed this with his aunt and cousin tells me that something was clearly going on.
You have to go for the entire military training and then, serve that same time in the military or you have to pay for it all. Thats why he would have stuck through the program even if it became particularly bad for him. There was a little matter of 200,000 dollars to deal with.
How many Muslims in the US army have killed fellow soldiers recently? You make it sound like an epidemic. Im more concerned about the border patrol in texas all of a sudden turning into a small militia who claims they are insighting a revolution than I am about Islamic soldiers.
A killing happened in orlando as well. Should we find out his background and debate whether that had anything to do with his motive on FOX as well? Of course not because he was white. How can we ostracize the majority? I bet if an entire research study was done on a cost-benefit analysis of screening all military personel with a Muslim background, the country would end up losing millions of dollars and not preventing a single incident. It would likely be more hurtful to the public image than anything else since we are currently in a war with two predominately Muslim Nations. It would be a fiasco politically - the equivalent of setting up internment camps during world war II. Thats how bad this would look to most Americans - there is no way such a thing could be rationalized.
He may have still been under a commitment to the military. He went through med school on their dime.
Um, this is not the first incident of military service personnel attacking their fellow soldiers. In fact, there was such an incident at Ft. Hood just a few years ago . . . not Muslims. Also, there is absolutely NO evidence that he was the member of a "sleeper cell" OR a jihadist. You're making stuff up, fairliberal.
Mission Accomplished!
~
Can you actually dispute anything that he said with facts?
Start with the New York Times' Headline
in which the article was taking some guesses as to why the gunman did what he did. In this case, fearing his deployment. How is that "politicizing?"
The Washington Post's Headline
Please point out how this is as O'Reilly put it, "bringing up American Foreign policy in conjunction with Hasan's mass murder."
As far as Dr. Phil is concerned, not sure why any of us should take as what he has to say as political analysis of any kind. However, if you feel this was politicizing, "by far left loons," on the part of a second rate television Psychologist, then by all means please show us.
Then Newsweek
Speculation and opinion, sure. Politicizing the tragedy at Fort Hood with that statement, no.
The only person that I am seeing, politicizing this tragedy, is Bill O'Reilly himself.
First, he is framing a complex issue in a very matter of fact - black and white. One doesnt just become a mass murder because they decide to go crazy one day. This is likely due to a confluence of factors. The act of taking an innocent life requires a lot more than a bad day never mind the lives of 13 fellow soldiers. And I doubt he spent 8 years in the millitary, before enacting a terrorist plot.
Second, this is very clearly just Bill's misguided opinions - this is not facts that one has to refute. How can you refute someone's opinion?
Third, one of the few facts he did bring in to his rant was that the left was trying to target the anti abortion nuts after Dr. Tiller's death. Well it wasn't to hard when the killer subscribed to an anti-abortion militancy. And the extreme pro-lifers somehow did not find it hipocritical to cheer the murder as somehow being a win for life. First time death was a win for life I guess. This was what extremist Randall Terry had to say on the tragedy -
"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches"
I have no clue how obama would possibly be able to convince people of such conviction that they are willing to kill people to supposedly pass legislation that life is sacred. Its contradiction is so apparent, it is almost laughable if it didn't happen.
Bill did call Tiller - "Tiller the baby killer" and much worse in fact. Like ACORN and Van Jones, Tiller was seen as some sort of ridiculous victory to the extreme right wing despite the moral repugnance that involves.
Shouldn't those people who radically oppose abortion be condemned after cheering a tragedy and a senseless death? So I do think he was wrong with that statement. I guess not everyone who oppose abortions should be marginalized but that is a good chunk of the country and they weren't. It was just those that either made tiller a target for others (like acorn and van jones) or the murderer or the ones that cheered for it after. Seems reasonable to me.
According to the FBI the violent crime rate increased every single year (in war and in peace) since World War II until 1993. And though it has since decreased some, it is still far higher than in historical times.
We are all searching for answers. We all want easy explanations.
According to O'Reilly the guy is either a "terrorist" or he is "nuts." O'Reilly's explanation is fatalistic because he sees the fact there exist a whole bunch more nuts and terrorist today than there were, say in 1958, as a reflection of declining self-responsibility for one's own actions.
That said I can empathize with Bill O'Reilly because I know what it feels like trying to make sense of totally senseless stuff. We don't want to absolve the shooter or personal responsibility for his actions, because it undermines a world view in which we are all in control of our own destinies. If some people cannot control their actions, then how can we ever hold any one responsible for anything? Wouldn't they just be able to hire a psychiatrist to claim that he "snapped?"
A hard line conservative would argue that even IF the man "snapped" and was a victim of "harassment" absolving him of any responsibility whatsoever threatens to implicitly justify something that is clearly unjustifiable.
An VERY far right lunatic like Limbaugh would argue that even IF the war or the harassment he endured WAS directly responsible for the act of murdering these people at Fort Hood, the man should still be held culpable to ensure that the standard of self-responsibility is upheld for the majority of other people without mental problems.
Me personally? I just don't like to see so many angry posts here. It makes me sad. And really... Bill O'Reilly isn't even close to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh-- not even close!
As far as him shouting "God is great." during his shooting spree, this has not been confirmed. Also, the FBI has been doing an in depth investigation of this man since this happened, and they have found no connections to radical muslims/terrorist groups.