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

[jasendorf]

www.hop.com look into it

You're stupid. Did I just call you stupid? I really meant lucid...

 

[Gunny]

You have some proof for those crimes you say the Americans committed? Maybe a trial? Maybe some American being demoted? Maybe some American being brought up on charges? Anything? Anything other than Nazi reivisonists telling you that American troops were cold-blooded murderers?

Dude, I posted you a link. Man, you ARE slow today.

I did not use a Nazi revisionist post, nor did I say American troops are cold-blooded murderers. DO you EVER get past assuming and putting words in people's mouthes?

You may need to get out of the military. Obviously you are unaware of your surroundings. If you think for a minute there aren't criminals within the military, you're just blind, dumb, or both.

That is in no way saying the entire military is criminal. Get over yourself and THINK just WHO you are talking to. I spend most of my time DEFENDING the military, not villifying. At the same time I am not blind to the fact that some people have and will commit war crimes.

Even one of the authors cited in your link Hugh Cole stated in his official history, "...it is probable that Germans who attempted to surrender in the days immediately after the 17th ran a greater risk" of being killed than earlier in the year, even so "there is no evidence... that American troops took advantage of orders, implicit or explicit, to kill their SS prisoners." - Chapter XI. The 1st SS Panzer Division's Dash Westward, and Operation Greif, The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge

But, your link doesn't mention that little tidbit.

My link doesn't need to necessarily mention some concoted justification for committing a crime. It doesn't matter WHY US troops executed Nazi POWs. It was and is illegal. Simple as that.

Now if you're going to sit here and try and play semantics just because you refuse to admit you've had your ass handed to you for skimming an article, jumping to a conclusion and rushing to villify O'Reilly, power to you. There is no getting around that simple fact for you.

 

[GotZoom]

My link doesn't need to necessarily mention some concoted justification for committing a crime. It doesn't matter WHY US troops executed Nazi POWs. It was and is illegal. Simple as that.

Now if you're going to sit here and try and play semantics just because you refuse to admit you've had your ass handed to you for skimming an article, jumping to a conclusion and rushing to villify O'Reilly, power to you. There is no getting around that simple fact for you.

You would think with 18 years in the military, he would have a better grasp of the English language.

 

[Gunny]

I did Basic at Ft. Bliss... you ain't gonna fool me with that sale!



Gen. Clark is right when he says attrocities committed by rogue American servicemen and women are properly punished by our country and out military. Unlike the attrocities of terrorists. That still doesn't offer a shred of evidence that Americans committed any war crimes at Malmedy.

So now it's evidence you want. I'd say if there was evidence, there'd be a conviction according to you and Clark, right?

The fact is, you and I both KNOW that crimes are committed by military personnel, some go unpunished, and attempting to say otherwise is ka-ka.

My point here is simple ...

O'Reilly made the statement in context of discussing war crimes with Clark. The crimes committed by the SS at Malmedy are part of a broader topic, but have no place in the conversation within the context Clark and O'Reilly were speaking. Bit for Oblermann (or whatever teh hell his name is) to take one sentence out of context and build a whole misleading story out of it is absurd, and THEREIN is the lie.

I for one, don't care for O'Reilly's casual matter-of-factness that US military attrocities are going to happen, but that does not make him a liar, nor does it say he is villifying the entire US military. He IS correct in that war crimes were committed by US personnel during the wars/conflicts he cited.

 

[Gunny]

You would think with 18 years in the military, he would have a better grasp of the English language.

Eighteen years? You're kidding, right?

 

[GotZoom]

Eighteen years? You're kidding, right?

Afraid not.

 

[Gunny]

Afraid not.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Afraid not.

Eighteen or 8 teen?

 

[5stringJeff]

Watch Bill O'Reilly first slander American WWII heroes by calling them the perpetrators of the Malmady Massacre... then watch FOX News actually change what the transcript says even though the video of O'Reilly's words proves otherwise.


Well, I guess the transcripts will be balanced... Quicktime video and transcript of video which outs Bill O

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?

 

[manu1959]

keith olberman is a nit wit.....x espn way down town bang moron.....that has discovered if all he does is bash oreilly....last word moron.....he will have a show


one laywer in town he starves....two in town they both get rich.....wesley clark....now there is a man a couple of sandwiches short of a picinc

 

[Gunny]

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?

Jeff,

What is mixed up is the context, and purposefully so. O'Reilly's comments weren't made in regard to the SS murdering US troops. They were made in a conversation with Wesley Clark concerning whether or not US troops committed war crimes. The link is up there somewhere.

His comment was taken out of context and an entire argument built around it.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff,

What is mixed up is the context, and purposefully so. O'Reilly's comments weren't made in regard to the SS murdering US troops. They were made in a conversation with Wesley Clark concerning whether or not US troops committed war crimes. The link is up there somewhere.

His comment was taken out of context and an entire argument built around it.

OK... I get it now. I had to read the OP a few times to get it.

 

[MissileMan]

Jeff,

What is mixed up is the context, and purposefully so. O'Reilly's comments weren't made in regard to the SS murdering US troops. They were made in a conversation with Wesley Clark concerning whether or not US troops committed war crimes. The link is up there somewhere.

His comment was taken out of context and an entire argument built around it.

Actually Gunny, after listening to the video and reading the transcripts and your links, it appears the O'Reilly did mis-speak. U.S. troops were the victims at Malmedy, not the perpetrators. There was mention of German POWs being killed by U.S. soldiers sometime after Malmedy, but it didn't say where, only when...New Years Day, 1945.

I like Bill, although he's a little too full of himself at times. He got his facts wrong on this one. I don't think he was doing it to slander the victims of Malmedy however.

 

[Gunny]

Actually Gunny, after listening to the video and reading the transcripts and your links, it appears the O'Reilly did mis-speak. U.S. troops were the victims at Malmedy, not the perpetrators. There was mention of German POWs being killed by U.S. soldiers sometime after Malmedy, but it didn't say where, only when...New Years Day, 1945.

I like Bill, although he's a little too full of himself at times. He got his facts wrong on this one. I don't think he was doing it to slander the victims of Malmedy however.

US troops were the victims at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge. That is an established fact that I think we can, one and all agree upon, right? That was Dec 1944.

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.

O'Reilly's statement was made in the context of discussing whether or not US troops committed war crimes during various wars. He may or may not have had the location correct. I don't recall seeing where the New Year's Day event took place.

Those facts being what they are, the incident is hardly what the aforemention nimrodimus has attempted to jump all over.

And one would epxect an 18 year Army vet to not be so naive as to argue against the fact that US troops HAVE committed war crimes. But then, Wesley Clark did too and he was a 30+ year vet.

I will defend the military to the last stitch, but not to the point of ignoring reality and/or history. There ARE those who committed war crimes. The incident above appears at a quick glance to be retaliation for the prior act committed by the SS.

Regardless how I may feel about it personally, it is my professional opinion it is morally wrong, and it is against US civil and military law, and the Geneva Convention of 1929, and such an act IS considered a war crime.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

US troops were the victims at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge. That is an established fact that I think we can, one and all agree upon, right? That was Dec 1944.

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.

O'Reilly's statement was made in the context of discussing whether or not US troops committed war crimes during various wars. He may or may not have had the location correct. I don't recall seeing where the New Year's Day event took place.

Those facts being what they are, the incident is hardly what the aforemention nimrodimus has attempted to jump all over.

And one would epxect an 18 year Army vet to not be so naive as to argue against the fact that US troops HAVE committed war crimes. But then, Wesley Clark did too and he was a 30+ year vet.

I will defend the military to the last stitch, but not to the point of ignoring reality and/or history. There ARE those who committed war crimes. The incident above appears at a quick glance to be retaliation for the prior act committed by the SS.

Regardless how I may feel about it personally, it is my professional opinion it is morally wrong, and it is against US civil and military law, and the Geneva Convention of 1929, and such an act IS considered a war crime.

So we can all agree that one person is overreacting and demonstrating excellent Democratic electoral strategy. Yes? Kumbayah bitches.

 

[Gunny]

So we can all agree that one person is overreacting and demonstrating excellent Democratic electoral strategy. Yes? Kumbayah bitches.

 

[nt250]

GunnyL
I will defend the military to the last stitch, but not to the point of ignoring reality and/or history. There ARE those who committed war crimes. The incident above appears at a quick glance to be retaliation for the prior act committed by the SS.

A very common trait that all liberals seem to have it the inability to understand how some elses opinion, when it's the opposite of theirs, must mean that the other person must support the opposite opinion. For example, if I hate John Kerry for being a liar, and opportunist, and a traitor, I must love George W. Bush. If I criticize Islam for being a sorry excuse for a religion that allows a Muslim man to do anything he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants, as long as he can say it is defense of Islam, I must be a Christian.

Most liberals I've encountered on message boards are totally incapable of separating the post from the poster. They care much more about who says something, than what it said.

I'm not a conservative. I am not a George W. Bush supporter. I think he's a lousy president. But I don't think he's Evil with a capital E. I don't hate him, and I do not understand why he generates the kind of undbridled hatred that he does. It is so out of proportion to anything the man has ever done.

Sorry, I'm rambling. I had to download Quicktime 7 to watch the video and it's taking frigging forever.

The point I wanted to make was that even when you express yourself well, as you did in the quote I took from your post, when you argue with someone like this, it never seems to matter what you say. It's very frustrating and it's something I don't think I will ever get used to.

 

[Gunny]

A very common trait that all liberals seem to have it the inability to understand how some elses opinion, when it's the opposite of theirs, must mean that the other person must support the opposite opinion. For example, if I hate John Kerry for being a liar, and opportunist, and a traitor, I must love George W. Bush. If I criticize Islam for being a sorry excuse for a religion that allows a Muslim man to do anything he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants, as long as he can say it is defense of Islam, I must be a Christian.

Most liberals I've encountered on message boards are totally incapable of separating the post from the poster. They care much more about who says something, than what it said.

I'm not a conservative. I am not a George W. Bush supporter. I think he's a lousy president. But I don't think he's Evil with a capital E. I don't hate him, and I do not understand why he generates the kind of undbridled hatred that he does. It is so out of proportion to anything the man has ever done.

Sorry, I'm rambling. I had to download Quicktime 7 to watch the video and it's taking frigging forever.

The point I wanted to make was that even when you express yourself well, as you did in the quote I took from your post, when you argue with someone like this, it never seems to matter what you say. It's very frustrating and it's something I don't think I will ever get used to.

Better get used to it here, QUICK. I've spent most of the day re-explaining in detail just about every post I've made, when I think I'm quite clear in what I say usually.

 

[nt250]

Better get used to it here, QUICK. I've spent most of the day re-explaining in detail just about every post I've made, when I think I'm quite clear in what I say usually.

It's not just here. I spent six years posting on another message board and it was the same thing.

Take the Swift Boat Veterans for example. When they first hit the scene the board was indundated with posts by liberals parroting the party line that they were just shills of the Republicans. But I knew there was more to it than that. I lived in Rhode Island and the Providence Journal has a columnist by the name of Bob Kerr. Everytime Kerry came up for reelection, Kerr would write nothing but diatribes about him. The phoney medal throw. Letting people think he was Irish for YEARS, which, btw, didn't come out until he started running for persident. I knew veterans hated him going back many years and it had nothing to do with Bush.

You think anybody cared? Of course not. I was the evil nt250 to them. A right wing, conservative, neocon. Anything I posted about how the Swiftees were just par for the course when it came to a Kerry campaign was automatically seen as support for the Anti-Christ (and you know who THAT is).

Then I found out why the Swiftees and so many vets really hated him and the liberals all got really upset with me when I posted proof the man committed treason.

It still kills me. They still say that GWB "avoided service" or went "AWOL" when he actually served more time in the military than Kerry did. He just didn't need as many Band-Aids.

 

[jasendorf]

Better get used to it here, QUICK. I've spent most of the day re-explaining in detail just about every post I've made, when I think I'm quite clear in what I say usually.

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.