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

[jasendorf]

Hey, buttmunch ... wanna' know what the difference is between your post here and what I have been saying all along?

Not ONE damned thing you f-ing 'tard. You have got to be the dippiest troll I have ever encountered, and THAT is saying something.

Then why have you been protecting Bill O'Reilly's assertion that the Americans at Malmedy committed war crimes?

 

[Gunny]

Then why have you been protecting Bill O'Reilly's assertion that the Americans at Malmedy committed war crimes?

Because rather than blow it into something it ain't, I can easily accept that he used the wrong place but got the incident right.

And if you think it takes a conviction in order for a crime to have occurred, your head's up your ass. Logic and the odds do not support your theory that for evey war crime there is a conviction. Some people got away with stuff in the military just as some people get away with stuff in the civilian world. Happens.

I can understand your wanting to protect the military. What you aren't understanding is that by denying anything took place if it wasn't prosecuted YOU are aiding and abetting the criminals who perpetrated any alleged crimes and went unpunished. With your mindset, they never will be punished because they never did anything. Called sticking your head in the sand.

But just to clarify, I am not, have not, and will not attack the US military as an institution. Criminals within the military, especially those who commit their crimes in the name of our military, are nothing to defend, and I will not. They do nothing but dishonor the US military and need to be weeded out and punished for their crimes.

 

[dmp]

...if you think it takes a conviction in order for a crime to have occurred, your head's up your ass.

A lesson we ALL learned from OJ.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Then why have you been protecting Bill O'Reilly's assertion that the Americans at Malmedy committed war crimes?

Bill O'Reilly mispoke. He didn't slander anyone. Do you realize how petty you look?

 

[jasendorf]

Because rather than blow it into something it ain't, I can easily accept that he used the wrong place but got the incident right.

If you can listen and watch O'Reilly's interview with Clark and come away with that impression then we're just going to have to agree to disagree I guess. I came away with a totally different impression.

And if you think it takes a conviction in order for a crime to have occurred, your head's up your ass. Logic and the odds do not support your theory that for evey war crime there is a conviction. Some people got away with stuff in the military just as some people get away with stuff in the civilian world. Happens.

I've repeatedly, over and over and over, stated that there was no charge, no trial AND no conviction... nothing. This isn't simply about a lack of a conviction for me. Even Cole, a guy who you quoted, states that there is no evidence to suggest that what was going on after the Malmedy massacre was any different than what was going on before (my reference for that is a whole lot of pages back).

I can understand your wanting to protect the military. What you aren't understanding is that by denying anything took place if it wasn't prosecuted YOU are aiding and abetting the criminals who perpetrated any alleged crimes and went unpunished. With your mindset, they never will be punished because they never did anything. Called sticking your head in the sand.

But just to clarify, I am not, have not, and will not attack the US military as an institution. Criminals within the military, especially those who commit their crimes in the name of our military, are nothing to defend, and I will not. They do nothing but dishonor the US military and need to be weeded out and punished for their crimes.

Well, see there, we can agree on something. I will not defend criminals in the military either. My problem is with anyone accusing veterans, particularly WWII veterans who aren't here to defend themselves of crimes for which there is, at best, sketchy evidence.

 

[jasendorf]

Bill O'Reilly mispoke. He didn't slander anyone. Do you realize how petty you look?

I disagree.

Why? Because he said the same thing eight months prior... AND, most importantly, he defended what he said after a viewer attempted to correct him for saying it this time. He obviously didn't mean Normandy because in his reply to the viewer he RESTATED Malmedy.

I don't consider standing up for veterans to be "petty." I simply want the record straight instead of distorted.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I disagree.

Of course you would. You'd love to believe Bill O'Reilly is all about slandering the armed forces. I guess it's easy to casually toss aside the THOUSANDS of times he's shown his support when it's convenient.

Stop looking at things in a vacuum.

 

[Gunny]

If you can listen and watch O'Reilly's interview with Clark and come away with that impression then we're just going to have to agree to disagree I guess. I came away with a totally different impression.

Afraid I can't accomodate. You are twisting the facts to support your rush to judgement simply because the left has branded O'Reilly a "neo-con."

I've repeatedly, over and over and over, stated that there was no charge, no trial AND no conviction... nothing. This isn't simply about a lack of a conviction for me. Even Cole, a guy who you quoted, states that there is no evidence to suggest that what was going on after the Malmedy massacre was any different than what was going on before (my reference for that is a whole lot of pages back).

And again, a lack of evidence does not mean no crime has been committed. I made no specific, baseless charges against any specific people. I cited one incident that is pretty-much accepted as fact. Do a little history research. What was accepted, or at least had a blind eye turned to it 60+ years ago would go over like a fart in a windstorm nowadays, and it would be you left-wingers leading the lynch party. No one was charged or convicted because no one cared; especially, where the SS was concerned.

Well, see there, we can agree on something. I will not defend criminals in the military either. My problem is with anyone accusing veterans, particularly WWII veterans who aren't here to defend themselves of crimes for which there is, at best, sketchy evidence.

Again, no specific accusation was made. I cited a generally-accepted as true incident and provided a link. You choose to turn a blind eye to it in some misguided sense of loyalty.

Another fact you fail to realize is I'm not judging ANY WWII US troops as pertains to this topic for their actions, and nowhere will you find that I have. All I stated was that shooting prisoners of war is illegal, and those committing the crime are criminals according to US and international law.

The simple fact is, war crimes are committed by all sides in all wars. The criminal element always exists, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. To believe that US troops are for some reason exempt from that basic rule is naive at best.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Okay, here's what happened.

Bill O'Reilley (I'll refer to him as BOR if that's allright )made a false statement. I think this was unintentional, seeing how he is generally right-wing from what I've seen of him (though not perfectly right wing, he seems more populist sometimes). He has a show every day, and has to think of responses lightning fast, so it's easy to imagine a scenario where he had a bit of dyslexia. He read something a good while back, but got the two parties involved mixed up.

So far, we're probably dealing with an unintentional mixup. The commentator in the clip is blowing a lot of hot air by calling BOR's comments slanderous, which implies intent. Mr. O'Reilley may not be a historian, and he may be mixed up, but to say that he intentionally lied is doubtful.

The problem isn't O'Reilley's misstatement of truth. The problem is Fox altering the transcript, and then BOR wouldn't admit error and issue a retraction. He should have simply said, "Whoops, I got the two groups mixed up. It was the SS that murdered the americans, not visa-versa. However, the historical record will support my broader argument which is that americans were not always the heroic angels they are portrayed as in WWII." That would have been the reasonable thing to say.

 

[Gunny]

I disagree.

Why? Because he said the same thing eight months prior... AND, most importantly, he defended what he said after a viewer attempted to correct him for saying it this time. He obviously didn't mean Normandy because in his reply to the viewer he RESTATED Malmedy.

I don't consider standing up for veterans to be "petty." I simply want the record straight instead of distorted.

You aren't "standing up for veterans." By refusing to acknowledge the fact the war crimes have been committed without conviction, you perpetuate them by allowing the perpetrators to remain uncharged and tried.

 

[Gunny]

Okay, here's what happened.

Bill O'Reilley (I'll refer to him as BOR if that's allright )made a false statement. I think this was unintentional, seeing how he is generally right-wing from what I've seen of him (though not perfectly right wing, he seems more populist sometimes). He has a show every day, and has to think of responses lightning fast, so it's easy to imagine a scenario where he had a bit of dyslexia. He read something a good while back, but got the two parties involved mixed up.

So far, we're probably dealing with an unintentional mixup. The commentator in the clip is blowing a lot of hot air by calling BOR's comments slanderous, which implies intent. Mr. O'Reilley may not be a historian, and he may be mixed up, but to say that he intentionally lied is doubtful.

The problem isn't O'Reilley's misstatement of truth. The problem is Fox altering the transcript, and then BOR wouldn't admit error and issue a retraction. He should have simply said, "Whoops, I got the two groups mixed up. It was the SS that murdered the americans, not visa-versa. However, the historical record will support my broader argument which is that americans were not always the heroic angels they are portrayed as in WWII." That would have been the reasonable thing to say.

Sorta kinda. It is my opinion than O'Reilly had the incident correct (the New Year's Day 1945 incident), and the name of the place wrong. However, I am not sure where exactly the incident took place. It may well have been Malmedy. The Battle of the Bulge took place from Dec 16, 44 - Jan 25, 1945. Jan 1st would be right in the middle of that battle.

I agree about O'Reilly. Even if he doesn't admit error, he should at least clarify his statement. Until he does, no one can be 100% sure what he meant.

 

[Gunny]

And here's some more info from an eyewitness .....

I turned the two prisoners over to Joe Minnaugh, of Harrisburg, who could speak German. Later I learned these two men had been taken behind a haystack and shot. The order had been : Take no prisoners in this drive.

Some of the boys had some prisoners line up. I knew they were going to shoot them, and I hated this business. I hid behind one of our tanks so that they would not see me and ask me to help with the slaughter, Fortunately one of the fellows decided not to shoot them in the open where Germans hiding in the woods could witness this atrocity. They marched the prisoners back up the hill to murder them with the rest of the prisoners we had secured that morning.

http://www.11tharmoreddivision.com/history/21st_aib_b_company.htm

 

[nt250]

The simple fact is, war crimes are committed by all sides in all wars. The criminal element always exists, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. To believe that US troops are for some reason exempt from that basic rule is naive at best.

I think it goes beyond simply "criminals". John O'Neil made the point that with over 2 million people serving in Vietnam, some of them were bound to be unbalanced, or prone to committing acts of barbarity. And there is truth to that. But there is more to it than that.

When I was in 11th grade I had a class called Current Affairs. It was a social studies class. The teachers name was Mr. Fleming. He was probably in his late 50's, early 60's. He was one of the best teachers I ever had, and his class was always interesting. I graduated in 1977, so this would have been 1975-1976.

One day the subject of the My Lai massacre came up. The whole class just erupted in outrage. Mr. Fleming was the type of teacher that let us speak out without being called on. Any kid could just say anything during one of the class room discussions. He was a really great teacher, very laid back, and we had a lot of great discussions in his class room. I was a shy kid and rarely said anything, but Mr Fleming let anyone talk.

After all us Know-It-All 17 years olds had got done expressing how horrible the US military was Mr Fleming let the talk die down. Then he stood up and walked over to the four most popular boys in the class and assigned them identies. They were sitting together, two by two in the rows of desks near the windows.

He gave each of them a name, a hometown, an age. He created a story where they would all meet on their first day in Vietnam and be assigned to the same unit. I can't remember all the details now, but in just a couple of minutes these four boys were soldiers. Then he killed them. One by one. One was killed by a booby trapped baby carriage. One by a sniper. I can't remember how he killed the third boy.

Then he asked the class how we could judge what the fourth boy did. There was dead silence in the classroom. He didn't say it was right. Or justified. He just made us think.

He was a great teacher.

 

[CSM]

I think it goes beyond simply "criminals". John O'Neil made the point that with over 2 million people serving in Vietnam, some of them were bound to be unbalanced, or prone to committing acts of barbarity. And there is truth to that. But there is more to it than that.

When I was in 11th grade I had a class called Current Affairs. It was a social studies class. The teachers name was Mr. Fleming. He was probably in his late 50's, early 60's. He was one of the best teachers I ever had, and his class was always interesting. I graduated in 1977, so this would have been 1975-1976.

One day the subject of the My Lai massacre came up. The whole class just erupted in outrage. Mr. Fleming was the type of teacher that let us speak out without being called on. Any kid could just say anything during one of the class room discussions. He was a really great teacher, very laid back, and we had a lot of great discussions in his class room. I was a shy kid and rarely said anything, but Mr Fleming let anyone talk.

After all us Know-It-All 17 years olds had got done expressing how horrible the US military was Mr Fleming let the talk die down. Then he stood up and walked over to the four most popular boys in the class and assigned them identies. They were sitting together, two by two in the rows of desks near the windows.

He gave each of them a name, a hometown, an age. He created a story where they would all meet on their first day in Vietnam and be assigned to the same unit. I can't remember all the details now, but in just a couple of minutes these four boys were soldiers. Then he killed them. One by one. One was killed by a booby trapped baby carriage. One by a sniper. I can't remember how he killed the third boy.

Then he asked the class how we could judge what the fourth boy did. There was dead silence in the classroom. He didn't say it was right. Or justified. He just made us think.

He was a great teacher.

That was one helll of a teacher!

 

[Gunny]

I think it goes beyond simply "criminals". John O'Neil made the point that with over 2 million people serving in Vietnam, some of them were bound to be unbalanced, or prone to committing acts of barbarity. And there is truth to that. But there is more to it than that.

When I was in 11th grade I had a class called Current Affairs. It was a social studies class. The teachers name was Mr. Fleming. He was probably in his late 50's, early 60's. He was one of the best teachers I ever had, and his class was always interesting. I graduated in 1977, so this would have been 1975-1976.

One day the subject of the My Lai massacre came up. The whole class just erupted in outrage. Mr. Fleming was the type of teacher that let us speak out without being called on. Any kid could just say anything during one of the class room discussions. He was a really great teacher, very laid back, and we had a lot of great discussions in his class room. I was a shy kid and rarely said anything, but Mr Fleming let anyone talk.

After all us Know-It-All 17 years olds had got done expressing how horrible the US military was Mr Fleming let the talk die down. Then he stood up and walked over to the four most popular boys in the class and assigned them identies. They were sitting together, two by two in the rows of desks near the windows.

He gave each of them a name, a hometown, an age. He created a story where they would all meet on their first day in Vietnam and be assigned to the same unit. I can't remember all the details now, but in just a couple of minutes these four boys were soldiers. Then he killed them. One by one. One was killed by a booby trapped baby carriage. One by a sniper. I can't remember how he killed the third boy.

Then he asked the class how we could judge what the fourth boy did. There was dead silence in the classroom. He didn't say it was right. Or justified. He just made us think.

He was a great teacher.

I have to disagree. It does NOT go beyond "criminals." I have not personally judged anyone. My statement has been basically that legally, war crimes are agains the law; therefore, illegal; therefore, making criminals of those who perpetrate the crimes. And that war crimes are morally unacceptable to us as a society.

 

[nt250]

I have to disagree. It does NOT go beyond "criminals." I have not personally judged anyone. My statement has been basically that legally, war crimes are agains the law; therefore, illegal; therefore, making criminals of those who perpetrate the crimes. And that war crimes are morally unacceptable to us as a society.

I get your point. But don't you find it odd that liberals are so willing to excuse cirminal behavoir for everyone BUT our soldiers?

I think Calley got off too easy for what he did.

But I also don't think laughing at a naked prisoner deserves any jail time.

 

[Gunny]

I get your point. But don't you find it odd that liberals are so willing to excuse cirminal behavoir for everyone BUT our soldiers?

I think Calley got off too easy for what he did.

But I also don't think laughing at a naked prisoner deserves any jail time.

The left has always been that way. At least as far back as when I was a kid (we graduated the same year btw). When they turned against the war in Viewtnam, who did they focus most of their hatred on? Returning troops who were only doing what they were ordered to do.

They're tapdancing around the issue right now with their "I support the troops but not the war" hypocrisy; which, is just bullshit. It's the only lesson the lefties learned from Vietnam .... blaming the troops will bite you in the ass later on down the line.

But then a lefty judge will let a child molestor go with a 6 month sentence.

 

[dlanders]

I get your point. But don't you find it odd that liberals are so willing to excuse cirminal behavoir for everyone BUT our soldiers?

I think Calley got off too easy for what he did.

But I also don't think laughing at a naked prisoner deserves any jail time.

But it's politics.

Two, even if all the speculation about what happened at Haditha is true, and our troops did go on a search and destroy after being attacked, and having one of their own killed, what the hell is the war crime here? So some innocent people got killed? .

What's the difference between Calley's crimes and what happened in Haditha if the allegations prove to be true?

 

[Gunny]

But it's politics.




What's the difference between Calley's crimes and what happened in Haditha if the allegations prove to be true?

There is no difference, and those guilty of committing war crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

My only objection to an investigation and possible charges is the incident being tried in the media before-the-fact.

 

[nt250]

What's the difference between Calley's crimes and what happened in Haditha if the allegations prove to be true?

Planning?