O'Reilly slanders American WWII heroes and then FOX washes it's transcripts...

[jasendorf]

Can't view the link at work. However, I'm wondering if Bill has his facts mixed up. Gunny's link in post 10 shows that US troops did fire on SS prisoners later on, following orders issued because of the massacre. So maybe Bill got it mixed up in his head. Has he ever issued a retraction?

Just the opposite Jeff... Bill just became even more agitated and pompous after a FOX viewer emailed to try and correct him.

Watch the video... read the transcripts... decide for yourself if Bill was talking about the RESULT of the Malmedy massacre or the Malmedy massacre itself and confusing who perpetrated it. Don't take my word for it.

 

[nt250]

Just the opposite Jeff... Bill just became even more agitated and pompous after a FOX viewer emailed to try and correct him.

Watch the video... read the transcripts... decide for yourself if Bill was talking about the RESULT of the Malmedy massacre or the Malmedy massacre itself and confusing who perpetrated it. Don't take my word for it.

What's the reference to the 82 Airborn mean?

I read the transcripts but I couldn't download Quicktime 7 to watch the video. It froze.

One quote says O'Reilly says "in the 82 Airborn" the other says "and the 82 Airborn".

Since nothing I read on this thread or in the transcript says anything about the 82 Airborn in relation to the first massacre, where US troops were killed by the SS, was this reference to the 82 Airborn a reference to the second massacre?

By the way, why would Fox change the transcript to read Normandy? Nobody got massacred at Normandy. Did they?

 

[jasendorf]

What's the reference to the 82 Airborn mean?

I read the transcripts but I couldn't download Quicktime 7 to watch the video. It froze.

One quote says O'Reilly says "in the 82 Airborn" the other says "and the 82 Airborn".

Since nothing I read on this thread or in the transcript says anything about the 82 Airborn in relation to the first massacre, where US troops were killed by the SS, was this reference to the 82 Airborn a reference to the second massacre?

By the way, why would Fox change the transcript to read Normandy? Nobody got massacred at Normandy. Did they?

I'm not really sure what the reference to the 82 Airborne is about... I'll need to go back and read it...

but, as for your second question, it has been suggested quite often that American troops killed surrendering Germans and POWs at Normandy. I doubt that also. My guess is that between the language barrier and the confusion of war, some may have been accidently killed... but nothing more than that.

 

[jasendorf]

The actual quote from O'Reilly:

O'Reilly: General! You need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two and the 82nd Airborne who did it!

The following is an MP3 of his sentence... listen to it a couple times and decide for yourself whether it is "in" or "and"... personally, it sounds like a Bill O'Reilly "and" with a soft "d". But, each of you can listen for yourself and decide.

MP3 Link

 

[Gunny]

Let's see... you've been quite clear. American troops around Malmedy in 1944-1945 were cold blooded murderers. Yes, you've made your point. The Nazis were victims. Nevermind that those men were never charged with such, never convicted of such and never proven as such... they're dead and no longer here to defend themselves, so people like you and Bill O'Reilly think you can defame them with your accusations.

I disagree.

Gen. Clark's statement was 100% accurate. In the U.S., we don't let attrocities or breaches of the Geneva Convention go unpunished. Your statements that we do simply gives ammunition to the terrorists.

Do you realize that it is possible some terrorist is printing out your statements and passing them out to his friends saying, "Look, this Marine Gunnery Sergeant is even admitting that his evil U.S. military will kill in cold blood and go unpunished. The crimes this Marine says happened were never punished!"

Thanks for supporting the terrorists. They appreciate it.

Let's do some simple math ..... 18 year Army vet ..... that would at a minimum make you 36 years of age. HOW have you survived? It was my opinion that ANYONE as stupid as you usually got killed off through natural selection about ...oh ...16 years ago.

I can't even possibly begin to comprehend by what method you came to the conclusions that I in any way posted anything you have attributed to me.

If ANYONE is aiding and abetting terrorism, it's complete morons such as yourself who are incapable of even an elementary level of reading and comprehension, and or any form of reasonable thought.

Everything you have posted on this board has been elementary school level, adolescent reasoning and parrotting whatever your precious DNC permits you to. Based on your posts so far, you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot, and incapable of contributing to society in any way, shape or form.

I can only marvel at the fact you are actually (allegedly) a member of the Army Reserve, but then, I have to remember also you are in the Army Reserve Band. It's just hard for me to believe that the Army could produce an educated, well-mannered and professional individual such as CSM, AND produce an utter piece of shit such as yourself. Guess you slept through THAT class.

Please feel free to go fuck yourself, and stay away from my posts until you can learn to read, and get some f-ing manners, not to mention a clue as to what is actually going on in the world around you.

Oh .... and have a nice day.

 

[jasendorf]

Look GunnyMurtha...

Just because you and Bill O'Reilly want to charge WWII veterans as war criminals, men who were never charged with war crimes, who were never convicted of war crimes and who were never proven to have committed any such war crimes don't get all in a tizzy when I call you on it.

I won't have it.

Bill O'Reilly was wrong and so are you regardless of whether you're calling them the perpetrators or the Malmedy massacre (which they weren't) or "just" reactive war criminals to Malmedy.

If that makes me "an utter piece of shit" in your eyes... I'll happily take the title. I don't want any kind of love from someone who defames WWII veterans or our military.

For those who missed it, here's GunnyMurtha calling me a nimrod because I won't agree to his revisionist history which accuses uncharged, unconvicted, unproven allegations that American WWII veterans are war criminals.

We can also agree (well except for one nimrodimus ignoramusus among us) that accusations have been made concerning US troops executing Nazis on New year's Day, 1945.

 

[jasendorf]

... and stay away from my posts until you can learn to read, and get some f-ing manners, not to mention a clue as to what is actually going on in the world around you.

Perhaps you should read the name of the poster of this thread before you go calling them "your posts"... you could have chosen to stay away and not support Bill O'Reilly's attack on US servicemen. Instead, you chose to defend him. You could have chosen to keep your mouth shut about him and let us guess whether you support his slander instead of opening it and proving that you do.

 

[Gunny]

Look GunnyMurtha...

Just because you and Bill O'Reilly want to charge WWII veterans as war criminals, men who were never charged with war crimes, who were never convicted of war crimes and who were never proven to have committed any such war crimes don't get all in a tizzy when I call you on it.

I won't have it.

Bill O'Reilly was wrong and so are you regardless of whether you're calling them the perpetrators or the Malmedy massacre (which they weren't) or "just" reactive war criminals to Malmedy.

If that makes me "an utter piece of shit" in your eyes... I'll happily take the title. I don't want any kind of love from someone who defames WWII veterans or our military.

For those who missed it, here's GunnyMurtha calling me a nimrod because I won't agree to his revisionist history which accuses uncharged, unconvicted, unproven allegations that American WWII veterans are war criminals.

Listen here, junior, I've had about enough of your cluesless bullshit, and you putting words in my mouth I didn't say, so let's just cut to the chase and play "high card."

I'm holding one war and over 4 years sea/deployment time in my hand. What's in YOURS? A flute? Don't YOU, who leads a sheltered life in the rear shining your little instrument presume to tell me what goes on on the ground with grunts when I spent 20 years on ACTIVE DUTY walking the walk ... not puffing some phallic object in the rear.

Your purposeful dishonest portrayal of my statements is as blatantly obvious as is the naivete of your statement that US troops have not committed war crimes. It's documented fact they have, end of story. That fact does not villify the entire military, nor does it villify me for saying; ESPECIALLY, when I have gone to great lengths to explain to your 1st-grade level ass the context in which it was said.

 

[Gunny]

Perhaps you should read the name of the poster of this thread before you go calling them "your posts"... you could have chosen to stay away and not support Bill O'Reilly's attack on US servicemen. Instead, you chose to defend him. You could have chosen to keep your mouth shut about him and let us guess whether you support his slander instead of opening it and proving that you do.

You would be correct EXCEPT I said "post" and not "thread", dipshit. Still trying to prove what an idiot you are, huh? Credit where it is due ....that is the ONE endeavor in which you excel.

The funny thing is I don't even care much for O'Reilly. It's just that your thread title is a lie, you are a liar, and you are a moron.

 

[jasendorf]

Your purposeful dishonest portrayal of my statements is as blatantly obvious as is the naivete of your statement that US troops have not committed war crimes. It's documented fact they have, end of story. That fact does not villify the entire military, nor does it villify me for saying; ESPECIALLY, when I have gone to great lengths to explain to your 1st-grade level ass the context in which it was said.

Yes, you have gone to great lengths to call American WWII vets war criminals... I know... and I continue to go to great lengths to defend them.

Perhaps if you'll stop calling them war criminals, I can stop having to defend them? Just as I disapprove of Jack Murtha trying our current servicemen in the press, I also disapprove of you trying WWII veterans on this message board.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, you have gone to great lengths to call American WWII vets war criminals... I know... and I continue to go to great lengths to defend them.

Perhaps if you'll stop calling them war criminals, I can stop having to defend them? Just as I disapprove of Jack Murtha trying our current servicemen in the press, I also disapprove of you trying WWII veterans on this message board.

I haven't called WWII vets war criminals. You are a liar, or just stupid, or both.

CLUE: You haven't disproven a thing anywhere on this board. All you HAVE proven is that you are a non-English comprehending moron of the first caliber.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, you have gone to great lengths to call American WWII vets war criminals... I know... and I continue to go to great lengths to defend them.

Perhaps if you'll stop calling them war criminals, I can stop having to defend them? Just as I disapprove of Jack Murtha trying our current servicemen in the press, I also disapprove of you trying WWII veterans on this message board.

Y'know, your comment is SO absurd, I just couldn't resist coming back. I have stated nothing other than there are criminals in the military, and those criminals have on occasion committed war crimes. How you get from there to saying I call ALL WWII vets war criminals is just about the same way you got from what O'Reilly said to the same conclusion.

It's called being an f-ing 'tard, and you are a damned good example of one.

 

[jasendorf]

I haven't called WWII vets war criminals. You are a liar, or just stupid, or both.

Really?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=436936&postcount=14

I said that crime [the crime of SS killing Americans at Malmedy] does not excuse nor justify the subsequent crime committed by US troops in executing POWs, and I stated that O'Reilly is not lying about the fact that it happened, nor is O'Reilly "slandering" nor dishonoring the US military, nor WWII vets for stating fact.

 

[jasendorf]

How you get from there to saying I call ALL WWII vets war criminals is just about the same way you got from what O'Reilly said to the same conclusion.

I never said you called "ALL" WWII vets war criminals... perhaps it is you who needs the reading lesson?

But, that you call ANY WWII vet who has never been charged, tried, convicted, or indicted of war crimes is scurrilous in my eyes.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I never said you called "ALL" WWII vets war criminals... perhaps it is you who needs the reading lesson?

But, that you call ANY WWII vet who has never been charged, tried, convicted, or indicted of war crimes is scurrilous in my eyes.

You are a CLASSIC example of why dems are losing elections. Textbook.

 

[GotZoom]

I never said you called "ALL" WWII vets war criminals... perhaps it is you who needs the reading lesson?

But, that you call ANY WWII vet who has never been charged, tried, convicted, or indicted of war crimes is scurrilous in my eyes.

I tell you what El Dorfo...you do have a pair of cojones.

With all the things you have posted, not just in this thread, seeing you use the word "scurrilous" against Gunny is pretty humorous.

 

[Gunny]

Really?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=436936&postcount=14

You go beyond dumb. Nothing in that post suggests anything you attempt to attribute to me. Not even a good half-assed attempt, jack.

 

[Gunny]

I never said you called "ALL" WWII vets war criminals... perhaps it is you who needs the reading lesson?

Yes, you have gone to great lengths to call American WWII vets war criminals... I know...

There you go ... your own drivel. While I am more than sure you are going to attempt to strand on technicality, the implication is there.

But, that you call ANY WWII vet who has never been charged, tried, convicted, or indicted of war crimes is scurrilous in my eyes.

In other words, you're a blind dumbass, seeing only what you want to see.

 

[Gunny]

I tell you what El Dorfo...you do have a pair of cojones.

With all the things you have posted, not just in this thread, seeing you use the word "scurrilous" against Gunny is pretty humorous.

Somebody probably used it on him, then had to explain what it meant to him.

 

[GotZoom]

Somebody probably used it on him, then had to explain what it meant to him.

I know someome like that. He hears a word that sounds intelligent. Either has to look it up or have it explained to him. Then that is all you hear for the next three weeks.

Of course, he is 22 and doesn't have 18 years experience in the military.