O'Reilly attacks European press [Archive]

Jimbola

08-10-2004, 11:30 PM

Funny, I saw in the Moore debate this guy was nit picking every bit of his argument, obviously trying to hint at the fact that Moore had insufficient evidence to make such radical claims, yet here he is making an equally if not more radical claim with absolutely no proof :confused:

I just find it a bit ignorant/arrogant (take your pick) how he can also class the whole of the European press as anti-bush and leftist, anti-war etc. As viceroy has already said, we have the daily mail (has a field day whenever an illegal immigrant does something) and the sun (made quite inflammatory comments psyching people up for the war), both are hardly of the liberal mindset this guy is suggesting.

What's more, there's probably many other such examples from France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc etc.

Put short the guy doesn't know what he's on about :(

vchampionl70

08-10-2004, 11:39 PM

I would give a lot to see any one of you debate the man, because he is extremely well articulated and is very smart. As for his attacking the European press, I am certain much of it is focused on television channels like the BBC (Who have been known to air specials such as 'Why America is hated througout the world')*

*Not necessarily the exact name; don't quote me on this, but something to this degree.

Jimbola

08-10-2004, 11:44 PM

Of course he would kick my ass in any debate. However, I put this more down to the fact that he's been involved in television/media/politics for many years, and so will be well versed in public speaking, tearing apart an argument and even coming out on top when really his points have been beaten.

Such experience generates a charisma that means people can see him as well learned - although with broad and sweeping statements such as the one this topic is about does bring this quality of his into question.

Thvggee

08-10-2004, 11:46 PM

Yeah for the most part he is an idiot. I hate people who are the extremes of conservatism or liberalism.
Isn't it a little extreme to "hate" people over this?

JerkyMyTurky

08-10-2004, 11:48 PM

Hopefully, Americans can find out why the world hates us so much and hopefully we can do something to change what we are doing and hence change their opinions about it. Is it such a bad thing that BBC would air such a report? It is probably the point of view that will never see in our news, so why not be open to it and try to see what the other side is seeing. Our news is not as free as we all believe and are told it is to be. We are fed the news about feeding the children of Somalia and Sudan and liberating the suffeirng Iraqis, but we need die hard activists to talk about the harm our country does to the environment or die hard activists who try to close and show the situations of sweat shops arounds the world. These may be simple and minor examples, but there are alot of things America does, that has a direct influence on the world's people, that is why there are many people in the world that might not like us and have such strong feelings of hate. You also, don't get this powerful being nice to everybody and without stepping on some people as you rise to the top.

Maverick

08-11-2004, 12:18 AM

Sorry for getting off topic.

Didn't the Oil for food scandal mostly involve companies? And only a few Government groups in Europe?
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/010002.html
Yeah mostly, but the Russian state received a lot as well as a few of their political parties. Then there were at least two people in France, I think that held a position in their government. As far a Germany goes, I am not sure what the hell he is talking about.

I really can't give an opinion on this O'Reilly guy because I have only seen a part of one of his shows. I try not to watch politically motivated shows. More often then not they are opinion based and I like to form my own opinions.

Don't analyze it so much. "Oil for Food Scandal" sounds so much better as it is. It is nice to throw around in arguments. ;) How does "War for Oil Scandal" or "War for Personal Profit Scandal" sound?
Sorry you feel that way. I want to know how something like this could happen under the watchful eye of the UN.

shade

08-11-2004, 12:26 AM

I guess viceroy didnt actually watch it. I happened to, and he did in fact cite examples.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 06:39 AM

I guess viceroy didnt actually watch it. I happened to, and he did in fact cite examples.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

puppyroach

08-11-2004, 09:59 AM

Well, he´s just stupid. When Clinton was in office, the European press wasn´t exactly going easy on him either, we have always had a critical view on alot of the american politics, simply because it affects us so much (by critical, I mean both good and bad). Something that has been discussed during Bush´s time, is the fact that the world has become more unstable, economicaly, socially and environmentally, partly because of his decissions, partly because the aggression factor has increased between almost all of the continents. Although the last one (the aggression factor) isn´t because of him, I think it´s easy to blame him and the US, because your country is really in the spotlight right now.

For now, Europe´s hoping for a change of leadership in the US, to narrow the gap between us, bring some calmness to the middle-east, and focus more on the environment, and what better way than to have a new leader?

Most newspapers and television in Europe have some kind of political color, but there still is some emphasize on treating news in an unbiased way, giving both sides of every story, and I believe O´reilly should look at some other news suppliers other than the brittish and french, who at the moment are the most connected to USA. And there´s no surprise that a big part of Europe are against the Iraqi war, therefore we also get more critical towards Bush.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 10:21 AM

It is worth noting what one of O'Reilly's guests said, and that is that after 9/11 Europe was behind America by a huge majority. Even if we didn't commit as many troops to Afganistan as O'Reilly may have liked, the fact is we at least sent something (Britain especially). It was the Iraq war that turned things around. O'Reilly cries about how France, Germany and Russia were on the payroll of Saddam, but it's a known fact that those countries had oil interests in Iraq anyway. Does it matter? Yes, but it's nothing America is innocent of. America is quite happy to befried countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even though they practice such barbaric activities as torture and public executions. To his credit O'Reilly does criticise these links, but in doing so shows a lack of understanding of American foreign policy.

Asbestos Crayon

08-11-2004, 11:06 AM

Oh please you guys. I read BBC all the time and they are always putting down the US. Even before 9-11 they did it.

Let me tell what I at least think of europe from my personal experience and travels. They are only about PC. If the political wind blows, you go with it. There is no real leadership in Europe right now. Hell, every one there is still paranoid about Hitler. And you know, I read in all the EU press after 9-11 said how they were behind the US and how much they shared our pain, but you want to know what all my european friends were telling me? You guys desearved it. About time some one did something to you. You know what my responce to that is when some one says it? FUCK YOU! And then it all goes into a political talk about who did what and I always hear this line of bull shit about stuff the US has done and they never say why the US did it. Then I have to remind them of shit like the US embassy getting blown up in Lebenon before we did the shelling. I have to remind them of the arab invasion and the killing of arabs and jews; men, women, and children that worked together to get rid of the mufti in Palestine and how the mufti was a puppet govenor appointed by Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. I also have to remind them that the UK was the first to gas the Kurds back before WWI and that Saddam is only repeating what they did. Or how France over threw the Algerian government and has been fighting an insergence war there every since. Now, does Europe really want to dump on the US for attacking those it thinks as enemies AFTER it's mainland was attacked?

All in all, I don't care what O'Reilly says, but Europe better get its act together on how it treats the US or I will guarantee you our allience with it is going to be very short lived.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 12:21 PM

Oh please you guys. I read BBC all the time and they are always putting down the US. Even before 9-11 they did it.

No they don't. If the fact is Najaf is a war zone, then it's reported. It's got nothing to do with any anti-American sentiment.

Let me tell what I at least think of europe from my personal experience and travels. They are only about PC. If the political wind blows, you go with it. There is no real leadership in Europe right now.

That is a diabolical generalisation for a start. You dare to say we have no leadership whn your current President is nothing but a puppet, putting on a circus act for the public?

Hell, every one there is still paranoid about Hitler.

That's just crap.

And you know, I read in all the EU press after 9-11 said how they were behind the US and how much they shared our pain, but you want to know what all my european friends were telling me? You guys desearved it.

Well again you're assuming everyone in Europe thinks exactly alike, but really after decades pissing off various people in the world, what did you expect people to do? America has a mixed history with regards to warfare. Very often it's a case of doing the right thing, but almost always it's because of your interests. It is true that many people, after 9/11, asked what took the terrorists so long?

About time some one did something to you. You know what my responce to that is when some one says it? FUCK YOU!

Some of your population pretty much said "Fuck you" when you provided the IRA with money and weapons.

And then it all goes into a political talk about who did what and I always hear this line of bull shit about stuff the US has done and they never say why the US did it.

Well you usually do it because it's convenient for your country.

Then I have to remind them of shit like the US embassy getting blown up in Lebenon before we did the shelling. I have to remind them of the arab invasion and the killing of arabs and jews; men, women, and children that worked together to get rid of the mufti in Palestine and how the mufti was a puppet govenor appointed by Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

By all means do that. It's things like regime change that annoy people, particularly if it was done for purely political purposes.

I also have to remind them that the UK was the first to gas the Kurds back before WWI and that Saddam is only repeating what they did. Or how France over threw the Algerian government and has been fighting an insergence war there every since.

I'd be the first to admit that mistakes were made in the past, and still are being made. However, you seem to have trouble grasping why people don't like America and maybe that's because you're known for very similar things to which you have charged us with.

Now, does Europe really want to dump on the US for attacking those it thinks as enemies AFTER it's mainland was attacked?

No, you know full well European nations gave America support for Afganistan. It was Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks that people disagreed with.

All in all, I don't care what O'Reilly says, but Europe better get its act together on how it treats the US or I will guarantee you our allience with it is going to be very short lived.

Really? I shudder to think of what that would do to the world economy, which is what your country is built on.

Asbestos Crayon

08-11-2004, 04:32 PM

Dude, do you smoke crack or something? You serioulsy miss the mark. I will just say we are on a total different level and leave it at that.

verycoolnin

08-11-2004, 05:06 PM

shade

08-11-2004, 05:53 PM

Perhaps you could enlighten me? The general portrayal of "Cowboy Bush" and specific references to recent newspaper articles about Kerry and Bush, stating that Kerry is a dry person but he isnt Bush and as long as anyone but Bush wins its good.

Im sorry that I cant get more specific than that. I was not taking notes. :rolleyes:

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 06:04 PM

The general portrayal of "Cowboy Bush" and specific references to recent newspaper articles about Kerry and Bush, stating that Kerry is a dry person but he isnt Bush and as long as anyone but Bush wins its good.

All the same, I don't believe O'Reilly appreciates just how many news outlets are in Europe, and to suggest enough of them are anti-Bush to make us all blind to anything different is an absurdity of monumental proportions. Or maybe it's just on par with the general quality of O'Reilly's reasoning.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 06:05 PM

Dude, do you smoke crack or something? You serioulsy miss the mark. I will just say we are on a total different level and leave it at that.

However short your stay on this board may be, while you are here could you at least try to be a bit more agreeable?

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 06:07 PM

I hear O'Reilly is gonna remind us all of the grave danger we face in his Talking Points memo tonight. I can't imagine why and I can't believe he's gonna try to equate the War on Terror with the two world wars...

shade

08-11-2004, 06:28 PM

Triple posting makes baby jesus cry.

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 06:30 PM

Triple posting makes baby jesus cry.

Yeah and so do useless messages.

shade

08-11-2004, 07:59 PM

It is worth noting what one of O'Reilly's guests said, and that is that after 9/11 Europe was behind America by a huge majority. And it is worth noting that the vast majority of Europe misunderstood the "with us or against us" statement either through biased reporting or lack of oxygen in their collective rooms. The "with us or against us" statement was mentioned by the financial newspaper representative in the interview as a key reason for anti-bush sentiment.

madadder

08-11-2004, 09:03 PM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406170008

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bill

p.s. Yes it is old, but I think this gives Bill the credibility he deserves. :rolleyes:

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 09:18 PM

O'Reilly just attacked a whole continent again in his Talking Points memo.

First he equated Osama bin Laden with Hitler. Now that's a sketchy comparison at best. Whilst Hitler (at one point) certainly had the means to start killing everyone in the western world, he did not. Osama by contrast may wish death upon all westerners, but it is in fact an impossibility for him. Hitler had infinitely more power than Osama has to wreak death and destruction.

O'Reilly then went on say Europeans are "afraid to stand up to tyrants just like 70 years ago". Excuse me Bill, but it had nothing to do with being afraid. It had to do with the simple fact that Britain and France were not ready for war. We weren't even ready to attack Hitler when we declared war in 1939, let alone earlier in the 1930s.

Oh, and where was America during this time? Was it afraid too? Ofcourse not. It was still suffering the effects of the economic downturn and war was the last thing anyone wanted.

O'Reilly would have you believe that since America got rid of Saddam and the Taliban it has always been Johnny-on-the-spot when it came to getting rid of ruthless dictators. If only history agreed with him.

Edit: If I could I'd change the name of this topic to simply "O'Reilly attacks Europe".

Viceroy

08-11-2004, 09:20 PM

And it is worth noting that the vast majority of Europe misunderstood the "with us or against us" statement either through biased reporting or lack of oxygen in their collective rooms. The "with us or against us" statement was mentioned by the financial newspaper representative in the interview as a key reason for anti-bush sentiment.

Yes, I saw it. I don't think there's any interpretation of the "with us or against us" statement necessary. Basically it says "Help us now, or pay later".

Chewy

08-11-2004, 10:52 PM

Canada and Australia went o war when England did. We are not European we fought and died on the same beaches as the US, the Brits

Yes, I saw it. I don't think there's any interpretation of the "with us or against us" statement necessary. Basically it says "Help us now, or pay later".
That's the way it was seen here in Canada.

As for O'Reilly, Christ he's beginning to predict the past. What a moronic imbecile.
What a blatant act of shoddy sensationalized journalism.

Loss of life at the hands of Osama Bin Laden:

Dar es Salaam 1998 12
Nairobi 1998 213
WTC attack in 1993 6
WTC attack in 2001 3000
U.S.S. Cole, in 2000 17
Bali nightclub 2002 200
Estimated loss of
Soldiers in Afghanistan 1000

4448

Plus attacks in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and a host of other countries the toll of loss of life from Osama Bin Laden. (according to Time Magazine is just over 5000).

Hitler’s Final Solution:
Estimated 5.75 million Jews, not mention 1 million Romanies, communists, Soviet prisoners, incurable invalids, homosexuals, and other “Sub Humans” . I wont even include the men and women that served and lost their lives to halt this horror. Or the civilians loss of life. The two situations in history are incomparable. I agree wrong is wrong but you can not compare these events. It’s disgusting.

shade

08-11-2004, 11:09 PM

Yes, I saw it. I don't think there's any interpretation of the "with us or against us" statement necessary. Basically it says "Help us now, or pay later". And that would be an example of misinterpretation. You are either actively against terrorism, or you are against us. What classifies a country as on "our side" is a country who actively seeks out terrorists within their own borders or helps us fight terrorists militarily or financially. If you turn a blind eye to terrorism, you are against us.

Example: The Taliban didnt directly attack us. But they allowed al queda to go free in their country. They were against us.

For some reason you crazy Euros interpreted it like "If we dont help fight 'Bush's war' (iraq) he will declare us his enemy and attack us too!"

puppyroach

08-11-2004, 11:35 PM

And that would be an example of misinterpretation. You are either actively against terrorism, or you are against us. What classifies a country as on "our side" is a country who actively seeks out terrorists within their own borders or helps us fight terrorists militarily or financially. If you turn a blind eye to terrorism, you are against us.

Example: The Taliban didnt directly attack us. But they allowed al queda to go free in their country. They were against us.

For some reason you crazy Euros interpreted it like "If we dont help fight 'Bush's war' (iraq) he will declare us his enemy and attack us too!"

I here alot of Americans claiming that Europeans shouldn´t be so judgemental towards you, because we don´t know you. Hmmmm, well aren´t you being just a tad judgemental right now?

Don´t you think terrorists (this has got to be one of the american dictionary´s favourite word right now :)) pose a threat to our security aswell?I can guarantee there are terrorists roaming quite freely within our borders as within yours. But an even greater threat is when we forget our domestic problems (crime, poverty, education), and focus to much of our energy to find alien elements, both forreign and domestic.

And do you seriously believe war is the only way to stop terrorism? How has it worked so far? No country is against USA, simply because we don´t actively perform your little missions for you. We know the problem isn´t the terrorists, but the way we have treated the middle-east for too long, as a little puppet for our own plans. When we finally get the people in those countries to oppose the terrorism and demand more democratic sollutions to problems (like with IRA in Northern Ireland), then we will get rid of this problem.

The WTC attack was a terrible blow to the west, not only in terms of human lives lost, but as a symbol of western economics. But the moment you attacked Afghanistan, you did the exact thing the Al-Queda wanted: you created more hostility and more terrorists in the middle-east. Ofcourse they knew you would turn your weapons toward them, and after that, toward any other country in that region housing terrorists. And you don´t seem to understand what´s the driving force behind them: the Al-Queda don´t care for their own life, but for the greater mission they can accomplish, and this time, they succeded.

shade

08-12-2004, 02:19 AM

And do you seriously believe war is the only way to stop terrorism? How has it worked so far? Been 3 years and so far so good for us.

No country is against USA, simply because we don´t actively perform your little missions for you. And that is where you stray from the reality of Bush's statement. We simply want you to make a real effort to get the terrorists "freely roaming in your borders." It is in everyones best interest. We are not necessarily asking you to send 20,000 troops to Iraq.

We know the problem isn´t the terrorists, but the way we have treated the middle-east for too long, as a little puppet for our own plans. Unfortunately they recognise that we are no longer the same governments of the 50-80s. Aside from backing Israel, the US hasnt done anything to the middle east other than buy oil for the past 15 years. This is why 21 year olds like myself do not understand why someone would want to kill me personally because I am American. I was 5 or 6 during the Iran/Iraq war. Yet somehow because I am American, I am a valid target? I have never done anything directly to the middle east other than help increase the demand of their primary export.

Its like they dont realise we dont all live under governments that are totalitarian monarchies that stay in power for entire generations. GW and Clinton are not responsible for administrations prior to theirs and neither is the rest of the country. Its unfortunate that their land was a tool in the cold war, but it is over now, and everyone should move on.

But the moment you attacked Afghanistan, you did the exact thing the Al-Queda wanted: you created more hostility and more terrorists in the middle-east. Whoa, you disagree with eliminating the taliban and al queda? Iraq is up for debate in a different thread, but you directly oppose military action in Afghanistan?

Lestatdelc

08-12-2004, 05:09 AM

Didn't the Oil for food scandal mostly involve companies? And only a few Government groups in Europe?

Well considering the entire oil-for-food "scandal" stem form claims and documents from Ahmed Chalabi who has yet to ever let anyone see the evidence he claims backs his claims about the alleged corruption... I would not bet on there even being a real scandal at all.

puppyroach

08-12-2004, 05:41 AM

Been 3 years and so far so good for us.

And that is where you stray from the reality of Bush's statement. We simply want you to make a real effort to get the terrorists "freely roaming in your borders." It is in everyones best interest. We are not necessarily asking you to send 20,000 troops to Iraq.

And once again you focus on a small part of my answer. First of, the main thing I was discussing is that we don´t focus alot of effort on finding terrorists, when we have so many other things that are far more important, and when terrorists are such a small threat to us. This discussion has only arised because of Bushs fear of them, and therefore he begins to make these demand.

And why does everything has to be so dramatic and "movie-like", the phrase "if you aren´t with us, you are against us", seem like it´s taken out of a cheesy movie, and only works toward creating more resistance toward his demands, than if he had said it in a more diplomatic way. But I suppose it´s a nice sign on how he works.

Unfortunately they recognise that we are no longer the same governments of the 50-80s. Aside from backing Israel, the US hasnt done anything to the middle east other than buy oil for the past 15 years. This is why 21 year olds like myself do not understand why someone would want to kill me personally because I am American. I was 5 or 6 during the Iran/Iraq war. Yet somehow because I am American, I am a valid target? I have never done anything directly to the middle east other than help increase the demand of their primary export.

Its like they dont realise we dont all live under governments that are totalitarian monarchies that stay in power for entire generations. GW and Clinton are not responsible for administrations prior to theirs and neither is the rest of the country. Its unfortunate that their land was a tool in the cold war, but it is over now, and everyone should move on.

You still use oil from Kuwait, during Clinton´s last days as president Iraq was bombed every day, the military presence in Turkey, the bombing of targets in Sudan and Afghanistan during Clintons time, and the list just go on. Not to mention the turbulence caused by America in the 80´s through to the early 90´s, where people like Osama and Saddam where created by the US, and they (among others) are responsible for most of the terrorist-acts of today.

Whoa, you disagree with eliminating the taliban and al queda? Iraq is up for debate in a different thread, but you directly oppose military action in Afghanistan?

Well, I would be a fool if I wasn´t. Chasing the Al-Queda is one thing, bombing a country and it´s civilians back to the stone-age is a completely different matter.Maybe the US should have read the rules of war before engaging, bombing a hospital, civilian targets, and not taking their full responsibility after the conflict.

They did the same thing back in the 90´s when they helped the taliban to it´s position as leaders, they left the people in the hands of a murdering and bizzare regime. And how do they liberate the people? By killing them and destroying production and education in the amount of Billions of dollars.

And I´ve stated it before: not until WWI, it was more or less forbidden to kill civilians, and you shouldn´t attack a country on it´s civilian soil, but focus on it´s military targets, sadly this hasn´t happened since that time, and in fact only become worse. So excuse me if I don´t condone the killing of thousands of innocents because some 3000 died in WTC.

Asbestos Crayon

08-12-2004, 06:14 AM

Lestatdelc

08-12-2004, 06:26 AM

Oh well, we are just doing what the Europeans did all through the last 3 centuries. The just had different weapons the.

I be you ten bucks Kevron,bingowashisnamo, lestdelc, or bubbles shows up here and makes some itemized comment.

Call me crazy, but they have horred every thread I started or every thread I have commented in. I guess they love me or something.

A little late, I posted here before this post of yours, and I have made comments on the top 8 or so threads since I signed up here.

Don't flatter yourself, though proving in several threads that you couldn't find your ass with both hands is rather bemusing.

Asbestos Crayon

08-12-2004, 06:28 AM

A little late, I posted here before this post of yours, and I have made comments on the top 8 or so threads since I signed up here.

Don't flatter yourself, though proving in several threads that you couldn't find your ass with both hands is rather bemusing.

Yeah, I think you are more for real than the other two that seem to following me around tonight. I seem to have drawn a crowd. I've been watching a couple of people and where they have been posting and you are the only one that has varried from posting on just the threads I have started. The other two seem to only be interested in what I say in a thread and totaly skip what every one else has said.

So I guess your ok, but I still have my eye out on the other two.

bingowashisnamo

08-12-2004, 07:10 AM

posted by Asbestos Crayon 08-11-2004, 06:41 AM

Wow!
You've been here all day!
When do you find time to do any professor-type stuff?

(tee-hee-hee!) :p

bubbles

08-12-2004, 07:55 AM

Yeah, I think you are more for real than the other two that seem to following me around tonight. I seem to have drawn a crowd. I've been watching a couple of people and where they have been posting and you are the only one that has varried from posting on just the threads I have started. The other two seem to only be interested in what I say in a thread and totaly skip what every one else has said.

So I guess your ok, but I still have my eye out on the other two.

I am me. I am real. You are paranoid.

Viceroy

08-12-2004, 08:29 AM

Bill O’Reilly
The O’Reilly Factor
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr O’Reilly,

Further to your savage attacks on the European press, and Europe in general on the 10th and 11th August respectively, I was compelled to write to clean up a few matters.

Mr O’Reilly, after watching The Factor on 10th August I do not believe you realise the sheer amount of publications available just in a country such as Britain, let alone the rest of Europe. To name a couple, Britain has the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, two national newspapers both with a right wing slant and both, if asked, would have writers very fond of President Bush. If there is a problem in bias (and I don’t believe there is) it’s down to personal taste, not down to a lack of information. It’s also worth noting that over here in Britain we actually have reliable television news coverage. Therefore your assertion that all we have access to is anti-Bush, pro-Kerry material is complete lie.

You also rounded off nicely with a series of attacks, citing corruption in the highest levels of French, German and Russian governments. By your own admission, you have no proof of this apparent corruption. It is for this reason, that I expect you to apologise when or if these allegations turn out to be false and immediately cease these unnecessary attacks on your country’s allies until you can show hard evidence of any misdemeanors.

Your comments on Europe on 11th August on The Factor not only were offensive, but showed just how warped your history is. Your comparison between Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler was absurd. According to Time magazine, Osama is estimated to be responsible for something over 5000 deaths in his history. Hitler on the other hand has millions of deaths to his name, and that’s before we count military casualties. The power wielded by Hitler was infinitely greater than anything Osama could get his hands on.

How dare you say Europeans were and are afraid to stand up to tyrants. Mr O’Reilly the reason we did not attack Hitler before 1939 was simply because we were not ready. War was the last thing anyone wanted, thus every attempt to prevent it was made. I do not believe America was afraid to enter the war, yet it did so over two years after Britain and France. I demand an immediate public apology for this offensive and inaccurate statement.

Mr O’Reilly I believe you would have your viewers think that just because America has got rid of two brutal regimes, it has always been Johnny-on-the-spot when it came to saving lives and standing up to dictators. The fact is that half the time America actually puts up and supports these regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. You are betraying your viewers whenever you criticise Europe and misrepresent history. These inaccuracies and unfounded attacks should immediate halt.

I look forward to your reply.

puppyroach

08-12-2004, 09:20 AM

I salute you Viceroy! It´s time that some of the medias in the US start looking at how we in Europe conduct our news broadcasting, because I believe we in Europe have more knowledge about American news coverage than they have about European, and are often more unbiased.

Viceroy

08-12-2004, 09:25 AM

I'm gonna send it through normal mail, that way I'm more likely to get a reply from someone.

poopchow

08-12-2004, 02:05 PM

In his show O'Reilly just attacked the European press claiming it is all anti-Bush, pro-Kerry without citing any examples. Apparently O'Reilly (if he's read any European publication) isn't familiar with two of Britain's national newspapers the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, both known right wing newspapers. I think he also forgets that over here we actually get reliable coverage from television news.

He then rounds it off nicely with more attacks on France, Germany and Russia citing corruption at the highest level of government without offering any proof.

I got some proof, the Herald Tribune written by the NYTimes.

I have at least 6 articles in two papers alone that flat out decieve, lie, or are guilty of assholism.

1st: Sports page USA Dream Team loses to Italy
USA was supposed to beat Italy and they lost 95-78, pretty bad. No one said the USA was going to tample their opponents this time around but here are a few excerpts from what i remeber.
This is after critism like the age of the team etc etc
"The USA didnt only lose, they got a beat down....they should expect this"
"Now they know its not going to be an easy road for them"
(after larry browne said they have learned lessons and its better to learn them now)
"They are going to learn a lot more lessons"

And pretty much bs like that, IN THE SPORTS SECTION.

Of course they show an article saying Kerry still supports the war and doesnt regret his decision but then its quotes him saying...i cant remeber word for word but its like
I suppor the decision but "The president went to war too early"
TOo early?!??! THEN DONT VOTE TO GO TO WAR!

Then they got one with the Iraqi president banning Al Jazeera for 30 days until it changes its policies.
It said that the pres. has become to be an authoritative figure and that Al Jazeera showed "sensational" news that doesnt always want to be shown. No shit, i dont want to see people saying "death to america" on my tv and recruiting people to kill my country.

They just got a bunch of shit in that paper.

Also there is one called "Should Americans work less or Europeans more?"

It said that Americans are trying to work so hard because they need to pay for their health care and other basic needs while europeans only work 35 hours a week. In the first paragraph of the article it said
"The (so and so program) encouraged Europeans to get to a job and work to fight high unemployment.
I say, ok high unemployemnt thats not that good.

Then at the end of the article it says "the people of US are working harder to try to pay for thier needs and because they fear of job security and their house" or something like house whatever.

Point is, they just said that europeans unemplyment was high, then they critisize the US for jobs. But, in europe buisisness sucks there because its insanely hard to fire anyone.

In other words. fuck the New york times.

shade

08-12-2004, 02:13 PM

You still use oil from Kuwait, during Clinton´s last days as president Iraq was bombed every day UN no fly zone enforcement. Last I checked, British planes did too.

the bombing of targets in Sudan and Afghanistan during Clintons time Al Queda, usually in response to them blowing up an embassy.

Well, I would be a fool if I wasn´t. No I would just say you are a fool. You should have mentioned that earlier so I wouldnt waste time talking to you. Someone who believes that we werent justified in overthrowing the Taliban is beyond persuasion and logic. Your civil words effectively hide your irrationality until the right questions are asked.

Bombing civilians back to the stonage... what a crock.

Chewy

08-12-2004, 02:23 PM

Viceroy

08-12-2004, 02:28 PM

Viceroy, you may wish too cc. it to a newspaper in the UK, US, Canada, France and Germany. Stating as well you will submit his response. It might raise the stakes in responding but might direct more attention to his antics and his lack of professionalism.

That's not a bad idea...

I'll write a seperate letter to some major British newspapers. O'Reilly isn't very well known over here so i'll have to explain a bit. I would write to French newspapers if I could read the letter when it got published.

puppyroach

08-12-2004, 02:32 PM

I got some proof, the Herald Tribune written by the NYTimes.

I have at least 6 articles in two papers alone that flat out decieve, lie, or are guilty of assholism.

1st: Sports page USA Dream Team loses to Italy
USA was supposed to beat Italy and they lost 95-78, pretty bad. No one said the USA was going to tample their opponents this time around but here are a few excerpts from what i remeber.
This is after critism like the age of the team etc etc
"The USA didnt only lose, they got a beat down....they should expect this"
"Now they know its not going to be an easy road for them"
(after larry browne said they have learned lessons and its better to learn them now)
"They are going to learn a lot more lessons"

What are you talking about?? Europe in general (and former jugoslavia in particular), asweel as Asia are beginning to gain on the americans in regards to basketball. Ofcourse we will take our first chance to bash you, it´s about psychology. You do the same between teams in your country, as we do between countries in Europe, and towards america. This is just silly...

Of course they show an article saying Kerry still supports the war and doesnt regret his decision but then its quotes him saying...i cant remeber word for word but its like
I suppor the decision but "The president went to war too early"
TOo early?!??! THEN DONT VOTE TO GO TO WAR!

Ever heard of political pressure? I don´t say it makes things right, but I do believe alot of politicians supported Bush out of fear for being banned by the public. I remember Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore and others, being hung out in the public because they expressed an OPINION.

Then they got one with the Iraqi president banning Al Jazeera for 30 days until it changes its policies.
It said that the pres. has become to be an authoritative figure and that Al Jazeera showed "sensational" news that doesnt always want to be shown. No shit, i dont want to see people saying "death to america" on my tv and recruiting people to kill my country.

Have you ever watched Al Jazeera? They are the equivalent of CNN or BBC in the arab world, trying to give their unbiased view of the world. The cool thing is that the sometimes invite opposing forces to discuss and debate each other, and they are very interesting, and sometimes quite fierce...:). It is not, however a channel for terrorists to convey their message to the world, but it is often the first channel they contact to send out messages to the world, basically because they have more trust than any other media in that part of the world.

Also there is one called "Should Americans work less or Europeans more?"

It said that Americans are trying to work so hard because they need to pay for their health care and other basic needs while europeans only work 35 hours a week. In the first paragraph of the article it said
"The (so and so program) encouraged Europeans to get to a job and work to fight high unemployment.
I say, ok high unemployemnt thats not that good.

Then at the end of the article it says "the people of US are working harder to try to pay for thier needs and because they fear of job security and their house" or something like house whatever.

Point is, they just said that europeans unemplyment was high, then they critisize the US for jobs. But, in europe buisisness sucks there because its insanely hard to fire anyone.

In other words. fuck the New york times.

Well, once again, you are way of. All countries have different taxes and working hours. You are right about the Union though that has a big part in Europe, because we want the workers to have rights and have some defence towards the exploitation from companies. Regarding taxes, Germany have some 40% in taxes, and sweden 30%. But for that the citizens get free healthcare and education, and we have a good social-security net. And working hours: well in Sweden we have 40-hour weeks, the same as in most European countries, so there you go... ;)

Viceroy

08-12-2004, 02:55 PM

Thanks Puppy, I was worried I'd have to respond to that foolish message myself. :)

puppyroach

08-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Yup viceroy, it´s time to stop these foolishness... :D

Chewy

08-12-2004, 09:44 PM

Well considering the entire oil-for-food "scandal" stem form claims and documents from Ahmed Chalabi who has yet to ever let anyone see the evidence he claims backs his claims about the alleged corruption... I would not bet on there even being a real scandal at all.
Has there been any new information about the scandal, or how the investigation is going? I’m interested. post liknks if you can

Chewy

08-12-2004, 09:51 PM

That's not a bad idea...

I'll write a seperate letter to some major British newspapers. O'Reilly isn't very well known over here so i'll have to explain a bit. I would write to French newspapers if I could read the letter when it got published.
Another idea would be to challenge him to a debate in here.. same rules as with Dead. Vote after a week. Might be something you could add your letter.
Sure he has a team of folks working for him but I’m sure help could be set up for you maybe a high school debate team in Scotland. If he fails to take the challenge well, the headlines almost write themselves. “Fox balks debating Scotts”!!

Lestatdelc

08-12-2004, 10:08 PM

Has there been any new information about the scandal, or how the investigation is going? I’m interested. post liknks if you can

From Josh Marshall (www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003120):

While things are spiraling down into the memory hole it sometimes makes sense to give them a few quick tugs before they vanish into oblivion altogether.

Along those lines, remember that some time back there was a big splash about the UN oil-for-food program and claims that various international dignitaries -- including the UN official charged with overseeing the program, Benon Sevan -- had taken bribes or kickbacks from Saddam Hussein out of funds generated by the program.

The evidence for these particular charges stemmed entirely from a collection of documents allegedly in the possession of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, documents Chalabi apparently deemed too important to let anyone outside his circle see.

There were two Iraqi investigations into this alleged wrongdoing.

First, there was one run by Chalabi crony Claude Hankes Drielsma at Chalabi's direction, with assistance from KPMG (one imagines because Arthur Andersen was no longer available).

Another inquiry was established at the behest of Paul Bremer and run by the head of the Iraq's independent Board of Supreme Audit, Ihsan Karim, with assistance from Ernst and Young.

There was, to put it mildly, a pronounced hostility and antagonism between the two investigations. Chalabi wanted to keep the investigation under his control; Bremer's efforts blocked that aspiration.

Each of the investigations, it turns out, has run into difficulties, though of rather different sorts.

As for Claude Hankes Drielsma and his inquiry, the last we heard from him, early in June, he was claiming that all the computer files of his investigation had been destroyed by shadowy hackers on the same day Chalabi's HQ was raided in Baghdad. In a particular coup, the hackers managed to simultaneously destroy his back-ups kept on various hard-drives. "This report would have been even more damning than anticipated," huffed Hankes Drielsma.

KPMG has stopped working on the investigation because they're owed hundreds of thousands of dollars which have gone unpaid.

In the middle of June, Karim's investigation -- the one run through the Board of Supreme Audit -- signed an agreement with the UN investigation headed up by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to cooperate and share information.

Finally some progress.

But then this last Thursday, Karim was killed when a bomb was placed under one of the cars in his convoy.

Chalabi spokesman, Zaab Sethna told Reuters that Karim's outfit hadn't been well-equipped to handle the investigation. And then, with some mix of irony, understatement, and goonishness, he said: "The assassination of Mr Karim is very worrying. Bremer appointed the audit board and left them on their own ... The investigation was the highest profile probe the board was handling. It is impossible to speculate who killed Mr Karim, but the oil-for-food corruption involved very powerful people inside and outside Iraq."

So, with all these tumults and jagged occurrences, let's not forget to ask. Has anyone outside the Chalabi crew yet seen those documents? Given that we know Chalabi actually ran his own forgery shop in Iraqi Kurdistan in the mid-1990s, and his general lack of 100% reliability, it's hardly an idle question.

The person who really needs to see them, of course, is Volcker, who is not only (sad to say it, but true) the only investigator left standing, but the one heading up the only investigation that actually has real credibility.

The last batch of articles on this matter date from mid-June. And, as nearly as I could figure, they implied that Chalabi had still not coughed up the documents.

More recent articles:

ABout the issue...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php#003264

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/international/middleeast/10volcker.html

Viceroy

08-13-2004, 09:26 AM

Just to stir up the shit a little more I've also written a complaint to O'Reilly's boss. :)

poopchow

08-13-2004, 11:08 AM

What are you talking about?? Europe in general (and former jugoslavia in particular), asweel as Asia are beginning to gain on the americans in regards to basketball. Ofcourse we will take our first chance to bash you, it´s about psychology. You do the same between teams in your country, as we do between countries in Europe, and towards america. This is just silly...

That is true, because these damn pussies like Shaq dont wanna play but the article gave a negative light on the team. Like "they wont be showing their swagger anymore after that defeat" , i didnt even know they did. But i will accept that, because i dont want to argue about sports stuff here.

Ever heard of political pressure? I don´t say it makes things right, but I do believe alot of politicians supported Bush out of fear for being banned by the public. I remember Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore and others, being hung out in the public because they expressed an OPINION.

So then john Kerry is a liar. Thank you.

Have you ever watched Al Jazeera? They are the equivalent of CNN or BBC in the arab world, trying to give their unbiased view of the world. The cool thing is that the sometimes invite opposing forces to discuss and debate each other, and they are very interesting, and sometimes quite fierce...:). It is not, however a channel for terrorists to convey their message to the world, but it is often the first channel they contact to send out messages to the world, basically because they have more trust than any other media in that part of the world.

I have seen enough to know that it gives terrorist a nice microphone to try to recruit terrorists and kill americans.

Well, once again, you are way of. All countries have different taxes and working hours. You are right about the Union though that has a big part in Europe, because we want the workers to have rights and have some defence towards the exploitation from companies. Regarding taxes, Germany have some 40% in taxes, and sweden 30%. But for that the citizens get free healthcare and education, and we have a good social-security net. And working hours: well in Sweden we have 40-hour weeks, the same as in most European countries, so there you go... ;)

You missed the point.

Europe in general has a higher unemployment rate that america. Then it critisizes America because people cant find jobs and people are losing them "left and right" which is flat out false.

Again in the paper today the front headline said something like "Do they really want to fight?"
There was no overwhelming proof that the article had any truth to it. Aparently, the guy asked 2 platoons i think and most of them didnt think they were making any progress in the war.

So thats enough proof for the NYTimes to run a front page article.

Also they got a funny Editorial from a liberal saying that the government hasnt told us enough about the terror threat and the article frankly startled me a bit saying that the chances of an America Hiroshema was according to some people 51:49 or even.

They tell us too little, they tell us too much, point is bush cant win with some people.

puppyroach

08-13-2004, 11:54 AM

So then john Kerry is a liar. Thank you.

I have never said anything else. But just as him being a liar, so is Bush. He did go to war in order to please the masses, and that doesn´t rate to high in my book sorry...

I have seen enough to know that it gives terrorist a nice microphone to try to recruit terrorists and kill americans.

I honestly have no idea where you got that from. If I´m not mistaken, Fox and CNN recieved tapes from Al Jazeera, where Bin Ladin threatened your country, so that would make them equally as guilty. and Al Jazeera has never let any terrorists speak freely, promoting their personal war. I may be wrong (you seem to have seen it) so then I propose you give me the link to were these reports are, please.

You missed the point.

Europe in general has a higher unemployment rate that america. Then it critisizes America because people cant find jobs and people are losing them "left and right" which is flat out false.

Again in the paper today the front headline said something like "Do they really want to fight?"
There was no overwhelming proof that the article had any truth to it. Aparently, the guy asked 2 platoons i think and most of them didnt think they were making any progress in the war.

So thats enough proof for the NYTimes to run a front page article.

Also they got a funny Editorial from a liberal saying that the government hasnt told us enough about the terror threat and the article frankly startled me a bit saying that the chances of an America Hiroshema was according to some people 51:49 or even.

They tell us too little, they tell us too much, point is bush cant win with some people.

You can´t compare Europe in general with America. All of the countries in Europe have different politics, different taxes, different social structures. How can you even begin to compare Europe with the US, that have a far more consistent politic throughout the country. And if some newspapaer wrote that stuff you said, you must point toward that country, their unemployment rate, their politics. Please, if us Europeans try to get as much knowledge as possible about america, atleast try to do the same with Europe before you question us.

Well, if you are so anxious as to compare Europe and America, look at the forreign correspondents. America has severely withdrawn most of their correspondents in the world, yet Europe has a consistent (and a high) prescence in forreign countries. There is an american journalist living in Denmark, and he is quite worried that you have such a one-sided view of the war in Iraq. In most of europe we try to give as much information as possible about a situation, covering all sides of a story. The republican side has been aired far to long, we all know about it, and if the medias are so Kerry-friendly, they wouldn´t show Bushs side, would they? Now it´s time to show a different side, the one showing Iraqi people suffering, soldiers losing faith, showing that maybe, just maybe, this war was purely a political act.

And the question is this: the images you see of people suffering, are true, right? As with the images of people sheering and celebrating, so why are you so afraid of people showing both these sides? Can you honestly say that there has been as much news coverage of the negatives of war, as it has been of the positives? If there has mostly been the positives, then you are in deep shit, because then the media aren´t unbiased, and that is a dangerous situation.

Chewy

08-13-2004, 12:16 PM

And the question is this: the images you see of people suffering, are true, right? As with the images of people sheering and celebrating, so why are you so afraid of people showing both these sides? Can you honestly say that there has been as much news coverage of the negatives of war, as it has been of the positives? If there has mostly been the positives, then you are in deep shit, because then the media aren´t unbiased, and that is a dangerous situation.
Here is too articles.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300623&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6230427%5E26277,00.html

Charon

08-13-2004, 02:36 PM

Chewy (My apologies to others for a momentary digression) but I was curious..... Apart from burning down the Whitehouse, has Canada ever initiated aggression against a foreign nation?

Viceroy

08-13-2004, 03:34 PM

Apart from burning down the Whitehouse, has Canada ever initiated aggression against a foreign nation?

A counter question: If Canada has never initiated aggression against a foreign nation, is not that something to their credit?

Charon

08-14-2004, 04:10 PM

A counter question: If Canada has never initiated aggression against a foreign nation, is not that something to their credit? I tend to view such a trait to be honorable, and infinitely more constructive to civilisation then the diatribe of O'Riley and the rest of the militia at FOX.

poopchow

08-15-2004, 12:58 PM

You can´t compare Europe in general with America. All of the countries in Europe have different politics, different taxes, different social structures. How can you even begin to compare Europe with the US, that have a far more consistent politic throughout the country. And if some newspapaer wrote that stuff you said, you must point toward that country, their unemployment rate, their politics. Please, if us Europeans try to get as much knowledge as possible about america, atleast try to do the same with Europe before you question us.

The newspaper did the generalizing i got my info from the paper besides that fact that its very hard to fire someone in Europe.

Well, if you are so anxious as to compare Europe and America, look at the forreign correspondents. America has severely withdrawn most of their correspondents in the world, yet Europe has a consistent (and a high) prescence in forreign countries. There is an american journalist living in Denmark, and he is quite worried that you have such a one-sided view of the war in Iraq. In most of europe we try to give as much information as possible about a situation, covering all sides of a story. The republican side has been aired far to long, we all know about it, and if the medias are so Kerry-friendly, they wouldn´t show Bushs side, would they? Now it´s time to show a different side, the one showing Iraqi people suffering, soldiers losing faith, showing that maybe, just maybe, this war was purely a political act.

And the question is this: the images you see of people suffering, are true, right? As with the images of people sheering and celebrating, so why are you so afraid of people showing both these sides? Can you honestly say that there has been as much news coverage of the negatives of war, as it has been of the positives? If there has mostly been the positives, then you are in deep shit, because then the media aren´t unbiased, and that is a dangerous situation.

That is the only coverage of the war, "uprisings", Is there an end?? All this crap
They say they are unbiased thats what i hate.

puppyroach

08-15-2004, 02:20 PM

The newspaper did the generalizing i got my info from the paper besides that fact that its very hard to fire someone in Europe.

That is the only coverage of the war, "uprisings", Is there an end?? All this crap
They say they are unbiased thats what i hate.

Excuse me, but can you be abit more constructive? You didn´t discuss one thing I adressed in my response.

And do you honestly think that the ability for a company to fire someone, should be easy?? That is like asking companies to start using more discriminative methods, having sexual harrasments and such. Companies have profit as their major goal, not human values. This is where the union and the lwas come in, protecting the working man towards the companies.

And you still haven´t said who "they" are? All european press or just the french and british? And why aren´t they unbiased? I looked at some papers, and just the headlines are quite different in contents, ex: link1 (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/) link 2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/0,7722,362455,00.html) link 3 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/)

There are reports of the failed negotiations in Najaf, about the resistance in Iraq under saddam, and about a hurricane in Florida. Wow, this is really hostile towards America... :rolleyes: