Comments on: Bill O'Reilly's views on

Bill O'Reilly's views on

yevge — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:08:35 -0800

Bill O'Reilly's views on American protection of Israel, and the response of the Muslim World.

By: donkeyschlong

donkeyschlong — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:18:28 -0800

Worldnetdaily? No YellowTimes links too?

By: skallas

skallas — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:18:45 -0800

I hate to say this, but can we please have more context here? Like why you are presenting this? This guy has a popular television show and his views are far from unknown. This feels like such an unnecessary post. Anyway, back to Bill's over-the-top and, frankly, tired rhetorical tricks.

By: sp dinsmoor

sp dinsmoor — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:22:30 -0800

Mr. O'Reilly really has the market cornered on truth. His piece is titled 'Truth be told', and he actually ends it by telling me what he has written "is the truth". Heck, that does it for me. I'm convinced.

By: hama7

hama7 — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:23:29 -0800

The real reason that many Muslims hate America is that it supports and defends Israel. That sounds pretty reasonable. Did he miss anything?

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:24:12 -0800

Did he miss anything? His Prozac?

By: chaz

chaz — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:41:26 -0800

O'Reilly's logic is faulty at every turn. Virtually every single line of this simplistic, ignorant screed can be destroyed by basic arguments and evidence. There is a strong case to be made for good Israeli-American relations, but this is certainly not it. This is an absolute bludgeoning of the truth using the most specious examples, and jumping all over the place in its condemnations. Furthermore he doesn't seem to have even the most cursory knowlege of Middle Eastern history. One wonders if O'Reilly wrote this himself. If he did, I understand why he makes his career in soundbite land and blowhard antics. There is no way that anyone given a fair chance couldn't destroy this nitwit in an actual debate.

By: hama7

hama7 — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:43:18 -0800

There is no way that anyone given a fair chance couldn't destroy this nitwit in an actual debate. Psst. You could always try refuting the points he made.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:05:03 -0800

His facts? O'Reilly: Yet those courageous Germans are sitting this one out. Even though it is because of them that Israel had to be created in the first place. Fact: Also in June, a contingent of 1,700 British Royal Marines were re-deployed from Afghanistan to Kuwait and a 250-man, highly-specialized German NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare battalion equipped with "Fuchs" (fox) armored vehicles has been in Kuwait since early this year. Part of what he writes rings true: had Israel not been supported they would have been vanquished long ago. But it was the Balfour Declaratipon of 1917 in London, by the fading British Empire which led from a Zionist dream to the actual creation of the Jewish homeland. Ther holocaust obviously assisted the birth, as did Jewish terrorism. The guy has a very slim grasp on historical fact.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:07:34 -0800

Declaritopon? That dash-slot- has a slim grasp on spell checking...

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:37:10 -0800

Like why you are presenting this? Amen, skallas. The only point I can see to this post is to start yet another I/P slanging match. Just what we need.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:08:41 -0800

I believe that his main thesis is correct: Muslim enmity to the US is based on American protection of Israel and America stands increasingly alone in this. No one here has refuted or even argued this point.

By: ZupanGOD

ZupanGOD — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:15:11 -0800

I just wanna know how I can get a free "No Spin Zone" bumper sticker.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:30:57 -0800

My wife, who used to work with retarded adults (often more profound in their own way than O'Reilly) would call this kind of rhetoric "attention getting behavior". If we collectively ignore such behavior, O"Reilly and his ilk will sort of, well...shrivel up.

By: mikhail

mikhail — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:10:17 -0800

Reacting to O'Reilly's article, a senior White House official called the talk show host "irrelevant," saying that "no one around here is remotely concerned about what he has to say" on the subject of war with Iraq.

By: Kevs

Kevs — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:15:50 -0800

I'm somewhat confused also....he does exaggerate a bit, but how is his main thesis not true? We support Israel, and even though we donate far more money to the Arab World (Egypt and Jordan especially), they don't really like us because of our Zionist support. Makes sense to me.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:18:24 -0800

Psst. You could always try refuting the points he made. Could someone do this in every post?

By: Beholder

Beholder — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 03:41:01 -0800

Yeah it's so much easier to insult the writer of the article, than to actually refute his argument. The number one reason Muslims hate the US, is because we support a free and independent Jewish state. Of course the fact we let women vote and drive cars, is probably a close second.

By: TheBaffler

TheBaffler — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 05:10:43 -0800

Refuting the points he made? Here's one point, for a start: Until the creation of the state of Israel, Muslims, in general, were about the only friends that Jews had. Moslems have not been being trained in school (or at home, or anywhere else) 'for thousands of years' to hate Jews. Actually, the ones who have been trained to hate Jews are Christians, not Muslims. Christians, after all, blame the Jews for crucifying Jesus. Since the Middle Ages, Jews had been emigrating to Arab countries to avoid persecution in European ones for centuries prior to the foundation of the state of Israel. The 'fault' for this change of affairs, if it lies anywhere, lies with the US, England, and France in the way that the state of Israel was set up after WWII. While it was a nice (even a necessary) idea to give Jews their own state so that things like the Holocaust couldn't happen again in the future, the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians who had been living in Israel since Roman times naturally led to the conflicts which have plagued the state of Israel since its foundation. Really, at the bottom of it all, the Arab/Israeli conflict is no different from the Pakistan/India conflict or dozens of other conflicts which have taken place since the retreat of the colonial (i.e., European) powers from their empires. The mismanagement of the granting of independence (and, in particular, how borders were drawn) to the various colonies has engendered conflicts around the world. The colonial powers, out of guilt at what happened during the Holocaust and their failure to prevent/deter/whatever what happened led them to think that they could grant Israel independence and that the people who were actually living in Palestine at the time (Palestine being what it was called at the time) would just accept it. We've managed to take two communities which used to be best of friends -- the Jews and the Arabs -- and have managed to make mortal enemies out of them....

By: riptide

riptide — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 05:20:05 -0800

The Hitler Debt?? Please!

By: hama7

hama7 — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 05:50:47 -0800

Muslims, in general, were about the only friends that Jews had. I find that slightly odd, but I'd love to see a source which supports that argument. Christians, after all, blame the Jews for crucifying Jesus. Come on, man, we aren't living in the old testament here. Besides, Jesus was a Jew. You go on to accuse England and France, but I still can't see your point. The point was, (to quote Beholder): The number one reason Muslims hate the US, is because we support a free and independent Jewish state. I stand by this, no matter what the history of the area has been. Simply put: Israel wants a peaceful, independent secular (not necessarily Jewish) state. Palestine wants only the desruction of Israel and Jewish genocide.

By: riviera

riviera — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 06:24:53 -0800

I find that slightly odd, but I'd love to see a source which supports that argument. Any decent history of the Crusades, or of Moorish Spain, would do: the treatment of Jews under Saladin's the classic example, but after the reconquest of Jerusalem, Muslim tolerance of Jews lasted at least until the Ottoman Empire lasted, even as Zionism began to assert its claims on the region. (Note that the source there is the Jewish Agency for Israel.) Pick a book off the shelf, and you'll find ample evidence for the argument that Jews fared better under Muslim rule than Christian. Since you find it slightly odd, and have never seen sources supporting that argument, you're obviously ignorant of the area's history. Come on, man, we aren't living in the old testament here. Besides, Jesus was a Jew. Pope (and Saint) Gregory described Jews as "of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, adversaries of God." Read Ulysses, and you'll see that the prejudice against Jews as 'Jesus-killers' lasted into the twentieth century. You go on to accuse England and France, but I still can't see your point. Well, that's understandable, because history's not your strong point. Read up on the region towards the end, and just after, the First World War. We won't hold our breath waiting. I stand by this, no matter what the history of the area has been. Well, that's because you admit yourself that you're pig-ignorant of the history of the area, and base all your arguments on the soundbite rhetoric of Likudnik propaganda. Hope that helps you out.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 07:14:15 -0800

It's the economy, stupid. Any sort of large-scale persecution of Jews as "Jesus killers" hasn't happened in a long time. People have moved on to other excuses, primarily rooted in economic concerns ("Jews have too much money and control everything"). It's the same deal in Israel. The poor, undeveloped economies with largely Muslim populations are (rightly or wrongly) pissed that Israel has gotten "favorite son" status in the Third World, and that they're subsequently a successful economy with access to manufacturing, international trade and, more importantly, water. Mix in some Hatfield-and-McCoy generations of tribal hatred, and there you go. When the Muslim empire was thriving, as rivera pointed out, Jews and Muslims largely got along. Now that there's a widening economic gap, there's resentment, and there aren't stable regional political institutions to settle disputes without violence. The poor will always hate the rich. Oh yeah, and Bill O'Reilly's article is lame, simplistic, and not a constructive addition to the debate. The U.S. isn't some pet peeve of the Muslim world. Sad that he has such a large audience.

By: sheauga

sheauga — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 08:08:46 -0800

Once more: Why post this? The author has a big commercial media soapbox already, and we're not adding much value here. If you see something especially profound in this article, or a turning point of some type, please point it out, because I'm missing it. I'll bite on the point about Germany: "It may sound odd, but as Israel's former foreign minister, Abba Eban, has observed, no other country, with the exception of the United States, has done more to strengthen Israel than Germany. " Note extensive German - Israeli youth exchanges too. O'Reilley may think otherwise, but it's not exactly a secret that the German government feels an obligation to Israel. (This info took less than 30 seconds to find, using Google.)

By: Cerebus

Cerebus — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:16:34 -0800

hama7: I'm no Israeli or Palestinian apologist, but I am conversant with what appears to be a good deal of history which you are not. Take for example the Jews of the Iberian peninnsula. Discriminatory laws against Jews begin immediately in the post-Roman era, and grew worse until the Moor invasion in 711CE. The Moors, as did most of the Caliphate and subsequent states, treated all religious "minorities" (i.e., Christians and Jews) the same-- i.e., they were allowed limited self-rule (particularly their own courts) subject to special taxation, prohibition of proselyzation, and recognition of Caliphate courts in disputes involving any Muslim. Harrassment by Christian minorities of Jews continued, nevertheless. The Spanish Reconquista resulted in numerous pogroms against the Jewish populations, and the resumption of official persecution. Christians in Seville in 1391 slaughtered over 4000 Jewsih inhabitants of that city as one example of the violence against Jews that spread in the wake of Catholic reconquest. This all culminated in 1492 with the expusion decree, declaring that all Jews must convert or be exiled by March 31st of that year. Where did these Jews go? First to Portugal, where another forced conversion was attempted in 1497-- after which most Jews fled to the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire. A strikingly similar story can be told of Jews living in Palestine through the rule of Byzantine, Caliphate, Crusader, and finally Ottoman rulers of the area. By far, Jews fared worse where Christians went than where Muslims left their marks. The history of the Crusades is rife with crusader armies marching through Europe and slaughtering Jewish communities *in Europe* before moving on to fight the Muslims in Palestine. The current emnity between Jew and Muslim is recent. Very recent, in comparison.

By: hama7

hama7 — Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:07:45 -0800

I am conversant with what appears to be a good deal of history which you are not. "What appears to be" is exactly the point. What I know is not germane to this thread, as this is not an Ottoman Empire pop-quiz, nor a comparison of Jewish treatment by Muslims and Christians, nor should it be. The topic is simply (again): "The real reason that many Muslims hate America is that it supports and defends Israel." You can attempt to make some lame personal attacks, but calling me an idiot doesn't refute the quote above. Islamist Muslims couldn't care less, (if they even know, and I doubt it) about the Jewish flight to Portugal, nor what flavors of ice cream the Iberians preferred. However, I do appreciate your efforts. What Islamists do "know" is that Jews eat babies and drink their blood, and that The Great Satan supports evil Jew baby-eaters. I've seen the bloodshot eyes and hoarse voices of Islamists in many countries rejoicing over *any* attack on Israelis, Jews, or Americans. Moorish Spain and the Ottoman Empire just doesn't fit into the contemporary situation anymore, like it or not.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:42:17 -0800

No comment.

By: hama7

hama7 — Wed, 02 Oct 2002 05:14:31 -0800

I guess it's Israel vs. the world.