"We can't kill all the Muslims"

[Sela]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... muslim.php

Bill O'Reilly declared last night that the United States "can't kill all the Muslims" -- so will have to settle simply for winning hearts and minds.

Talking to Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, O'Reilly called the deadly shootings at Fort Hood last week by suspected shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "an act of terror."

He then turned to President Obama's supposed avoidance of labeling the attack as such.

[Direct Quote:]
Barack Obama wants to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, in the Muslim world, which is a good thing and you know that. As a soldier, we can't kill all the Muslims. So we wanna win as many hearts and minds of good moderate Muslims as we can. So he goes out of his way, you're absolutely right, Colonel, he goes out of his way, to avoid the "Muslim terrorist" label, which clearly applies to Hasan.


Here's the video.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIK6draL ... r_embedded

Don't get me wrong; I find O'Reilly almost entirely irredeemable, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted. But I hate to see the blogosphere trying to spin this as him declaring an intent to commit a genocide of all Muslims.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think the real problem is that this indicates that O'Reilly believes that he needed to say that to remind some of his viewership that we can't kill all the Muslims.

[Vympel]

Talking to Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, O'Reilly called the deadly shootings at Fort Hood last week by suspected shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "an act of terror."

Ok, let's just pretend that this was actually a planned attack for the purpose of carrying on The Enemy's Nefarious Objectives Against America. Last I heard, the guy was a lone nut, but whatever.

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

[Knife]

Talking to Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, O'Reilly called the deadly shootings at Fort Hood last week by suspected shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "an act of terror."

Ok, let's just pretend that this was actually a planned attack for the purpose of carrying on The Enemy's Nefarious Objectives Against America. Last I heard, the guy was a lone nut, but whatever.

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

I would say yes, it has changed. With the 'War on Terror' which can be viewed as a war on radical Islam, a counterattack, or something that can be seen as such, would fall under that huge umbrella. I do; however, agree that having a huge loosely grouped events under one term is bad, though.

[Pulp Hero]

Don't get me wrong; I find O'Reilly almost entirely irredeemable, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted. But I hate to see the blogosphere trying to spin this as him declaring an intent to commit a genocide of all Muslims.

Excuse me? He is lamenting the fact that we can't kill all Muslims. That requires no spin to be seen as an intent. He was basically telling his viewers: "Killing Muslims is okay. Do your part."

[Sela]

"As a Soldier, we can't kill all the Muslims."

I think from context it's fairly clear he's referring to militant Muslims in the Middle East. Sadly, if you can prove me wrong I actually *wont* be surprised, since O'Reilly has said similarly heinous things in the past.

[Ryan Thunder]

Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

Seems to me that its used to describe an act of violence by a party that can't simply be obliterated with conventional warfare, these days.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

Hasn't it been that way for a long time? I recall that the truck bomb attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983 was also called an act of terrorism, despite being against soldiers in their barracks.

[Lonestar]

Talking to Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters, O'Reilly called the deadly shootings at Fort Hood last week by suspected shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "an act of terror."

Ok, let's just pretend that this was actually a planned attack for the purpose of carrying on The Enemy's Nefarious Objectives Against America. Last I heard, the guy was a lone nut, but whatever.

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

Ralph Peters is also the dude who said "fuck 'em, they must have deserted" to those soldiers who got kidnapped by the Taliban earlier this year.

He is a classy gentleman.

[Pulp Hero]

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

Hasn't it been that way for a long time? I recall that the truck bomb attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983 was also called an act of terrorism, despite being against soldiers in their barracks.

To be fair that was perpetrated by an organized political group that we were not at war with at the time for the purpose of sending the United States a political message. I think it is far to classify Beirut as an act of terrorism.

I think that an attack on a United States military base inside of the US could indeed qualify as terrorism under certain circumstances. Mainly if the intent is to further a political or social message as part of a overall group ideology. However the Ft. Hood shootings are not terrorism, they are one man who was a Muslim taking out his frustrations violently.

[Coyote]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... muslim.php

Don't get me wrong; I find O'Reilly almost entirely irredeemable, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted. But I hate to see the blogosphere trying to spin this as him declaring an intent to commit a genocide of all Muslims.

It seems to me that "killing all the Muslims" would be his first, best, and easiest choice; however, since that is logistically and politically impossible he'll "settle for" a hearts-and-minds strategy.

[Coyote]

In regards to the changing of the concept of "terrorism", it seems now that any attack on any population group that is unprepared for the attack (and will therefore suffer greater damage due to that unpreparedness) can be considered terrorism. It'd have to be for a political motive, of course, otherwise it's just crime.

It'll have to be determined if Hasan really went on his rampage because of his Muslim beliefs and determination to "kill infidels", or if it was because he was just a fragile person who felt picked on and therefore justified in going on a rampage killing, Columbine-style.

I'm still of the opinion that this was a guy who was fragile and snapped, and was able to use his religion as a handy blanket for his actions. But in the end, he was just another whiny prat that wanted to go out in a blaze of "glory" before getting suicided-by-cop.

[Sarevok]

Maybe O Reily should go a bit further and say "The only good muslim is a dead muslim". That is what he means anyway. Why sugercoat it any longer ?

[Darth Yan]

Just when I thought this asshole couldn't sink any lower. Fuck you O'reily. Fuck you long and hard

[Pelranius]

I expect the talking heads on Fox to outdo each other now that Dobbs is apparently joining them. This is probably a sign of things to come.

[Duckie]

It depends a lot on intonation- "We can't kill all the Muslims" is a lot less dubious than "We can't kill all the Muslims" in my opinion, for instance.

[CarsonPalmer]

It depends a lot on intonation- "We can't kill all the Muslims" is a lot less dubious than "We can't kill all the Muslims" in my opinion, for instance.

Don't you mean the reverse? With the intonation on all, it implies that we can't do it because we can't get them all, but with the emphasis on can't, it implies that we CAN'T do that because its wrong.

[thejester]

How the fuck is an attack on a military base an "act of terror"? Does the word "terrorism" has no fucking meaning anymore, whatsoever? Or is the definition now simply "any act of violence committed by Muslims anywhere, for any reason, against anything, military or civilian?"

If the attack is committed by a sub-state actor for political reasons, I'd classify it as an act of terrorism. The IRA's various acts against the British military were always considered terrorism, for example.

[Duckie]

It depends a lot on intonation- "We can't kill all the Muslims" is a lot less dubious than "We can't kill all the Muslims" in my opinion, for instance.

Don't you mean the reverse? With the intonation on all, it implies that we can't do it because we can't get them all, but with the emphasis on can't, it implies that we CAN'T do that because its wrong.

Er, yes. I meant 'more dubious'.

[MKSheppard]

"As a Soldier, we can't kill all the Muslims."

*cue ghosts of Curtis LeMay and Herman Kahn walking onto stage from off left*

"We can kill all the muslims, with a good enough targeting plan."

...okay sorry, but I take such proclaimations as a challenge.

[Samuel]

Actually you can't. Since Islam is a religion (and the 2nd largest) its adherents are dispersed across the planet. Unless you mean in the sense of ignoring collateral damage and civilian casulties in which case you can deal with any problem by depopulating the planet.

[MKSheppard]

Actually you can't. Since Islam is a religion (and the 2nd largest) its adherents are dispersed across the planet.

A significant portion of them are in countries which are easily targetable (ref, Arab world, Indonesia, etc), and within that subdivision are countries so easily destroyable -- hint, one nuke that initates in the reservoir of the Aswan Dam and it's all over for Egypt.

As for the "spread around planet"; well, it's not like humanity has forgotten pogroms to deal with targets too close in for nuclear weapons.

This has been a public service by your resident Ruthless Genocidial Warmongerer (TM).

[Simon_Jester]

To be sure you could murder a significant fraction of all Muslims with a nuclear arsenal, probably without killing everyone else in the world. But it would be utterly impossible to kill all the Muslims in the world without killing everyone else, with a nuclear arsenal. And no plausible political combination could do it without using a nuclear arsenal.

Therefore, you can't kill all the Muslims without losing the war, which amounts to the same thing.

[Darth Yan]

Shep, stop trolling. If you can't contribute anything shut the fuck up, You racist fucktard.

[Sarevok]

No shep is entirely right. You could effectively kill all the muslims with nuclear strikes on muslim countries and military combing operations in muslim areas in non muslim countries. The point is that it is not feasible in current geo political climate. But it does not mean that it can not be done if the will existed. Keeping a realistic view of ones weaknesses is important. Many muslims dont realise just how defenseless and backward muslim countries are when they bluster about attacking evil westerners. This is a very bad and self defeating thinking.