O'reilly: "Did you see anybody protesting after 9/11?"

when discussing the attacks on qana and the "liberal" outrage over them, o'reilly said that there were no protests after 9/11...

i remember candlelight vigils being held around the world after 9/11...

so i'd like to make this thread devoted to compiling the disinformation o'reilly spews out

He meant there were no protests against the terrorists and stuff like there is against Israel. I am only explaining what he means.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so i'd like to make this thread devoted to compiling the disinformation o'reilly spews out

I don't think there is enough existing physical disk space on ATS to accommodate such a list...

O'Reilly is an idiot...

Hmm... Candlelight vigils for lives lost are the same things as protests for actions taken by a government or group now?

I think you're the one spreading the disinformation here.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
He meant there were no protests against the terrorists and stuff like there is against Israel. I am only explaining what he means.

um....

because nobody was actually in support of the terrorists (except for afganistan), so there wasn't much to protest against, we were unanimous about it being outright wrong

So then you admit that O'Reilly was correct in saying that there were no protests after 9/11?

A quick reminder:

The attack prompted numerous memorials and services all over the world. In Berlin, 200,000 Germans marched to show their solidarity with America. The French newspaper Le Monde, typically critical of the United States government, ran a front-page headline reading "Nous sommes tous Américains", or "We are all Americans". In London, the U.S. national anthem was played at the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace. (To mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee, New York City lit the Empire State Building in purple and gold, to say "thank you" for this action.) In the immediate aftermath, support for the United States' right to defend itself was expressed across the world, and by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 [4].

Source.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by loam]

I'd think that he means, no one in the US went over to the Saudi Embassy and tried to burn it down, or something liek that.

Which, technically, might be right, but a hell of a lot of peopel started treating muslims poorly. Even Sihks were attacked, simply because people thought that "turban=muslim". So I don't know what Oreilly's point is, that the lebanese shouldn't violently protest the Qana bombing? Why?

Right, the fact that there were candlelight vigils and worldwide support of the US following the events of 9/11 is not what is in question. I completely know that they did take place.

What my problem with what the OP said is his/her construing that those candlelight vigils are in some way similar to the protests over Israel's current actions in the Middle East.

For the record, this is what the OP had said...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
when discussing the attacks on qana and the "liberal" outrage over them, o'reilly said that there were no protests after 9/11...

i remember candlelight vigils being held around the world after 9/11...

so i'd like to make this thread devoted to compiling the disinformation o'reilly spews out

My emphasis. How is that not comparing the candlelight vigils to protests?

cmdrkeenkid

I'm not sure what your getting at... 200,000 Germans "marching" is not exactly a candlelight vigil... Moreover, I can personally attest to the fact that all across Italy protests were held against the 911 attacks.

Thanks for finally getting to the bottom of whether or not actual protests were held. I'll take your word that people in Italy were protesting the terrorists' actions.

And, no, 200K people marching in support of America is not marching in protest of the Taliban or other terrorist organization.

No problem...

However, I also regrettably have to admit that the same would not be true today in both of those places...

Sadly, we gave up the moral high ground not long thereafter.


[edit on 1-8-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
No problem...

However, I also regrettably have to admit that the same would not be true today in both of those places...

Sadly, we gave up the moral high ground not long thereafter.

We didn't do anything. Our government did. I never supported the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
We didn't do anything. Our government did. I never supported the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, as far as the world is concerned "our" government is "we" when it comes to foreign policy. Especially since our leaders are elected in a more democratic manner than most nations--even if they're elected indirectly, by congress (or the people we let run the companies that run the political machines from behind the scenes.)

Sorry to get off topic, but the above sentiment is something I think is a great example of what's wrong with the US populous--myself included probably to a higher degree than most around here. We forget that our government is us, at least in the eyes of the rest of the world, and we're damned quick to shout "but I didn't vote for him/her..." We can either back them, change them, or move.

As far as O'Reilly goes, I personally determined a long time ago that none of those political media hounds--including Limbaugh, Liddy, (Michael) Reagan, etc.--were worth more than reading a page or two of a newspaper. They all have their own political agendas they're going to try and push; if you want to avoid someone's spin then you need to read up on the issues yourself and determine your own perspective. At least Bill Mahr had (at least attempts at) humour on Politically Incorrect.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So then you admit that O'Reilly was correct in saying that there were no protests after 9/11?

it's a different situation

you protest when the majority thinks the wrongdoers (at least that's what they are in your opinion) is wrong

after the oklahoma city bombing nobody protested either

they didn't need to raise awareness

it's like comparing an orange to a snake infested plane

I lived in San Francisco area at the time and there were lots of protests against going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. They were anti-war and anti-Bush demonstrations.

Was O'Reilly's statement that hard to discern?? To be fair the OP did not give the background to that statment. I just happen to be watching the show at the time, so I can give a full explanation.

This was said during a segment about the Israeli bombing of a building containg lots of women and children; something I'm sure we all heard about. They showed many, many clips of large protests in the Arab world. There were people burning American and Israeli flags, smashing car windows, chanting and jumping together--your typical violent protest.

O'Reilly then went on to comment that, now listen here, in the ARAB WORLD he did not see any protests about 9/11, the London subway bombings, the Madrid bombings, or any other terrorist attack on, again listen please, INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

This was the point of that statement. The Arab world was up in arms over the killing of these innocent civilians, despite the warning from Israel and this being a time of war. However, in attacks by Terrorists against innocent civilians not in a war zone there was no significant protest by the Arab world.

Some mentioned massive protests after 9/11. Yes, worldwide there were. But not in the Arab world.

OP: you need to give a better background next time.

Why not look at what was actually said?

Worldwide demonstrations against Israel after about 60 people, including many women and children, were killed by Israeli bombs in southern Lebanon. Of course, these protestors, many of them pro-Hezbollah, also targeted the USA for condemnation.

No question, the Israeli bombing was a mistake and will hurt Israel in the court of public opinion, but mistakes are made in all wars. Abu Ghraib was a huge mistake by the American military in Iraq and the USA has suffered because of it.

However, isn't it interesting that the Islamic fascists never make a mistake?

That was a major point of his comments. That the world in general never seems to have open condemnation of Islamic fascists.

We rarely see worldwide demonstrations condemning their consistently barbaric behavior. In violation of a U.N. mandate, Hezbollah has fired thousands of missiles targeting civilians into Israeli cities. Have you seen many demonstrations against that?

How about after 9/11? Did you see mass demonstrations condemning Al Qaeda? Did you see protests when those savages beheaded civilians on videotape?

There you have it. Demonstrations condemning terrorist behavior as compared to Israel's behavior.

The answer is no. The terrorists can do pretty much anything without the world condemning them. Want more?

Iran is defying the United Nations on nuclear weapons. Any demonstrations? Muslims are slaughtering each other inside Iraq. Any protests?

"Talking Points" could list examples all day long. The truth is that hatred, not compassion for civilians, is driving these hypocritical demonstrations we saw over the weekend. This is not justifying the killing of innocents by Israel. My analysis is addressing a different problem: select outrage to advance the cause of Islamic fascism.

He seems to want to address a conspiracy in a sense. "Select outrage" as a tool, on purpose or not...being used to sway public opinion.

Back in America, the left-wing press counsels negotiation. OK, it's worth it. We're trying. But let's look at the negotiating record. President Clinton and Israel negotiated with Yasser Arafat until every cow in the world came home.

Arafat didn't want peace. Why? Because his terror activities made him millions of dollars. If you don't believe me, speak to his widow, currently living lavishly in Paris.

The U.N. has negotiated with Iran over nukes for years. No result. Iran doesn't want peace, it wants jihad.

North Korea doesn't want peace either. It signed a nuke agreement with the Clinton administration and promptly violated it.

Does Al Qaeda want peace? Even Howard Dean could figure that one out.

So what makes anyone believe Hezbollah would negotiate in good faith? The sad truth is that many in the Muslim world want to kill Jews and Americans.

"Talking Points" does want peace, but also wants to blunt the growing danger of Islamic fascism. Allowing Hezbollah to sit on Israel's southern border with thousands of missiles isn't a peaceful conclusion. It's capitulation, which is exactly what the jihad has won.

www.foxnews.com...

Anyway, I just wanted to get this info out for everyone. I understand the point he was trying to make. He was trying to show a bias happening in the world when people seem to protest the USA for every action, inaction, and mistake (and now Israel) and yet nobody ever seems to protest things related to terrorism.

It is an interesting viewpoint at least.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
It is an interesting viewpoint at least.

But completely unsubstantiated by a full account of the facts.

It avoids inspection of the degree to which our own actions (whether by incompetence or by design) contribute to the condition of having such little support in the Arab/Muslim world.

Let's not forget where we started in this most recent conflict in Lebanon... The Israelis BEGAN (not too unlike the US shortly after 911) with publicly stated Arab/Muslim government support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait. But rather than have a strategy to strengthen and capitalize on such support, a path was chosen by the Israelis, and the US, to not only eviscerate that support, but weaken the very credibility of those Arab governments...who, if you think about it, did something rather remarkable...SUPPORT ISREAL IN AN ATTACK AGAINST MUSLIMS!

Sure they had their own self-interested reasons in swinging support initially to Israel against Hezbollah... But so what?

The point is that Israel, and the US, FAILED to capitalize on the opportunity.

To complain about the natural consequences of that failure, as O'Reilly does, strikes me as utterly ridiculous, and removes from inspection the real problem we must address. Our strategies in the Middle East (and elsewhere in the Muslim world) have accomplished nothing but to worsen our position...and does much to strengthen that of our opponents...

Where is that discussion?

This situation calls for real "chess players" in leadership! Not the "tic-tac-toe" morons who lead us now.


[edit on 2-8-2006 by loam]

loam...

You have a very dangerous viewpoint. If indeed you are American, as the tone of your post suggests, you are a sad member of this country. I don't say that in a malicious way, I say that in a very serious way. I don't know what you read or watched or who you talked to that made you start to think the way you do, but you cannot blame the US for everything that goes wrong everywhere.

Anyway, the point is there is a whole world to go explore if you do not support and sacrifice for your own country.

Or if that's too much for you, atleast join the Peace Corps or something.

P.S. Which such a strong anti-US viewpoint, have you ever even lived in another country?