We Decide, you Shut Up

Thanz said:

Worst of all is O'Reilly presuming to speak for the views of the man's father, whom he had never met, and implying that his parents would both be ashamed of him.
Click to expand...

This is the part that disturbed me the most. OReilly comes after him with "I hope your mother isn't watching?"?

I was also bothered about his pretentiousness, considering that he never met the guy's father, and basically the only thing he knew about him was that he died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet, he still thought he knew what the guy's father would be thinking.
 
Thanz said:


I'm surprised that you would say this as some sort of defence for O'Reilly, who invited a guy onto his show because he thought that as a family member of someone who died at the WTC he had some interesting world political views. O'Reilly then tells him, twice, that he refuses to debate world politics with him because he doesn't care what Glick thinks.

The most sickening part of this is that O'Reilly claims to cut off Glick's freedom of speech out of respect for Glick's father. Glick's father probably had the same views as Glick, and would be disgusted by this display by O'Reilly. How O'Reilly, who would have never even met Glick Sr., can claim to do anything out of respect for him as a "good American" is beyond me.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue. Did you object when O'reilly treated the Christian fundy the same way?
 
Tony said:



What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue. Did you object when O'reilly treated the Christian fundy the same way?
Click to expand...

Why was it an irrational rant, and not simply trying to get a word in edgewise? Because you disagree with it, pure and simple.
 
Tony said:



What are you talking about? The guy was ranting and was incapable of rational dialogue.
Click to expand...

So is that why OReilly threatened to tell his mommy?
 
Sundog said:


Why was it an irrational rant, and not simply trying to get a word in edgewise? Because you disagree with it, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Do you want me to answer the question, or should I just let you do it for me?
 
I can't believe we're even debating this. O'Reilly had an agenda, that's plain to see, he invited this guy on, family member to killed father from 9/11, who is anti-war, and blames the Bush's for past actions as responsible for the "Assination" of his father. O'Reilly didn't have any debating game plan but to use highly emotional comments about respect for his father, and his mother and his usual steam-rolling style of "interview/debate" to basically overwhelm the guy into embarrassment. To the guys credit he didn't really allow O'Reilly to do so, prompting him to cut his mic at the end in frustration. Do I agree with Glick's worldview, no, its a flawed view by many IMO, and I think the quoted interview with Brzezinski demostrates this superbly.

Read Brzezinski's last 2 comments, they are very telling and very true. Did we train and supply Apghan terrorists back during the Cold war? Yes. Did the US entirely expect them to come back 2 decades later and hit them so hard in a terrorist act? Maybe, but they were willing to take the chance. Did luring the Soviets into a "Vietnam" style war in Apghanistan at that time, furthering the collapse of what was seen as the worlds Communist threat, seem more important than arming a smaller band of apghan terrorists? Obviously. These are the games that Super powers play, this is foreign policy, and yes sometimes in the aftermath things bite you in the ass. Do the Bush's feel no remorse because your Pappy died during 9/11 because their foreign policy in the past made the situation possible? Of course not, the loss of innocent civilian life is not something they take lightly I'm sure, simply because they were involved in arguably dangerous foreign policy in the past. People in those positions are forced to make hard decisions, with sometimes hard consequences and I do not envy them their jobs. When you make a mistake, you might not have chicken for dinner, or Billy might be standing out in the cold waiting for his ride home from hockey practice. Like Brzezinski said, which would you have choosen, the arming of the Taliban, or the collapse of superpower Soviet Russia?

But regardless, O'Reilly went in expecting to tear this guy up, the guy didn't let O'Reilly get to him, since O'Reilly doesn't really have much information obviously on world politics to argue the guy with, his easy ploy to embarrass him was ruined, and he cut him short. Its not that hard to figure out. As mentioned, O'Reilly factor probably isn't the best place to get your fix of true open debate on today's current events.
 
Sundog said:


Just let me do it for you, please. :p
Click to expand...

punch.gif
beerchug.gif
 
voidx said:

Read Brzezinski's last 2 comments, they are very telling and very true. Did we train and supply Apghan terrorists back during the Cold war? Yes.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, we never trained anyone to fly planes into buildings or to steer bomb laded boats into large ships. The "we trained them" thing is such a red herring.

We showed them how to shoot a rifle and how to fire a stinger. The "we trained osama" meme is just misleading propaganda. Thats why its conspiratorial garbage. The left wing woo-woos see this conspiracy of the US propping up people like Osama and Saddam just to later use them for target practice to expand our imperial desires.

We taught Timothy McVeigh to shoot a rifle also. However, we never trained him to mix fertilizer and gas and uhaul it up to a building.

Sorry, but "we trained osama so we are responsible" fails the most basic skepticism.
 
corplinx said:


As far as I can tell, we never trained anyone to fly planes into buildings or to steer bomb laded boats into large ships. The "we trained them" thing is such a red herring.

We showed them how to shoot a rifle and how to fire a stinger. The "we trained osama" meme is just misleading propaganda. Thats why its conspiratorial garbage. The left wing woo-woos see this conspiracy of the US propping up people like Osama and Saddam just to later use them for target practice to expand our imperial desires.

We taught Timothy McVeigh to shoot a rifle also. However, we never trained him to mix fertilizer and gas and uhaul it up to a building.

Sorry, but "we trained osama so we are responsible" fails the most basic skepticism.
Click to expand...

"What was America training Osama for?" would be a more relevant question.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


"What was America training Osama for?"
Click to expand...

That has already been address in this thread. We were training the mujahadeen (sp?) to fight the soviets.
 
Tony said:


That has already been address in this thread. We were training the mujahadeen (sp?) to fight the soviets.
Click to expand...

And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade. Now your country is hoist by its own petard. And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?
 
Mr Manifesto said:


And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade.
Click to expand...

Who else was there?


And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

People who only want peace should be ashamed, they are pussies. I want freedom, prosperity AND peace.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


And in doing so you picked an amoral person for your crusade. Now your country is hoist by its own petard. And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?
Click to expand...

Eh?

From MSNBC:
"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation"

In other words, we didnt train Osama or his cohorts (who were foreigners and not native afghans). We funneled aid from our CIA to the Paki ISI, to the MAK, which in turn funneled to Afghans.

The notion that Osama is a CIA trained rebel of some sort who turned on his masters is just rubbish. I am sad to see so many people buy this garbage. "We trained Osama" is the new "black helicopters".
 
corplinx said:


Eh?

From MSNBC:
"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation"

In other words, we didnt train Osama or his cohorts (who were foreigners and not native afghans). We funneled aid from our CIA to the Paki ISI, to the MAK, which in turn funneled to Afghans.

The notion that Osama is a CIA trained rebel of some sort who turned on his masters is just rubbish. I am sad to see so many people buy this garbage. "We trained Osama" is the new "black helicopters".
Click to expand...

So the CIA used a bunch of false trails to keep the dirt off its hands.

Well that's okay then.
 
Tony said:


Who else was there?


And O'Reilly has the gall to say others who only want peace should be ashamed?

People who only want peace should be ashamed, they are pussies. I want freedom, prosperity AND peace.
Click to expand...

In today's increasingly rabid pro-war envrionment the real brave people are the peace protesters and the 'pussies' those who stay silent in the shadow of the war mongers.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


So the CIA used a bunch of false trails to keep the dirt off its hands.

Well that's okay then.
Click to expand...

Noone said its okay. It had to be done in such a manner as to not provoke the Soviets of course. The point is, there is _no_ evidence we _trained_ Osama or Al Queida.

Thanks for demonstrating diversion though.
 
corplinx said:


Noone said its okay. It had to be done in such a manner as to not provoke the Soviets of course. The point is, there is _no_ evidence we _trained_ Osama or Al Queida.

Thanks for demonstrating diversion though.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that America trained Osama in such a way as to keep dirt off its hands to keep from provoking the Soviets but there is no evidence of it?

You have me confused. It hopefully makes more sense to you.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


So you are saying that America trained Osama in such a way as to keep dirt off its hands to keep from provoking the Soviets but there is no evidence of it?

You have me confused. It hopefully makes more sense to you.
Click to expand...

My woo woo meter is redlining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom