Friday, November 11, 2005

Ayatollah Bill O'Reilly is Pro-Terrorism

San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map.

At issue are comments from O'Reilly's Election Day broadcast on his syndicated Westwood One radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools.

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

Adding to the buzz was the archived version of O'Reilly's Tuesday show, which omitted the incendiary comments, according to Bay Area TV station KNTV.

The radio show was not the only time O'Reilly commented on the ballot proposition. On his Monday night "O'Reilly Factor," he tangled with Angela Alioto, the former president of the city's Board of Supervisors.

"Why should the rest of the country protect your butt, with all due respect, OK, when it comes to the war on terror, if San Francisco is going to thumb your nose and give the big digit to the military? Why should ... why should we protect you from al-Qaida and terrorists if you're going to disrespect the military, by passing this ... even though it's symbolic ... this resolution?" he asked Alioto.

GOI: First of all, passing a proposition to oppose the presence of military recruiters in city schools is not disrepecting the military. It is disagreeing with one action of the military. It is possible to disagree with having recruiters in city schools but also support the troops and our military. The issue is not black and white.

The military will still have plenty of chances to recruit young people through other means such as t.v. and radio ads. The vote in San Francisco is Democracy in action whether O'Reilly likes it or not. The people voted and that's that.

Secondly, does O'Reilly realize that what he is saying is that he supports terrorism? He surely can disagree with what San Fancisco voters decided but saying the city deserves to be hit by terrorists? Come on.

I think O'Reilly should move to Iraq or Iran to avoid the FBI or CIA lookin' for his fatwa demanding ass.

I also hear Bill might be coming out with a new book for the holidays. It's currently being titled, "Jihad for Kids."

---End of Transmission---


Isabella di Pesto said...

Someone should drop a house on him...a whole friggin' neighborhood.

james said...


Either that or toss him into the looney bin.

Underground Logician said...

Now, now, now. He's just being rhetorical, just like you all do. I'm a quick learner, huh?

james said...


I may be wrong. However, I don't I've heard of any main streem liberal talk show host advocating terrorist bomb a major American city before.

james said...


I am very surprised that you will not condemn what O'Reilly said. I think it is a lot more then empty rhetoric. This is terrorist threats of violence plain and simple.

The U.S. Defense Department defines terrorism as, "The unlawful use of--or threatened use of--force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments, (say the city of San Francisco) or societies, often to achieve political,(O'Reilly NEVER does this)religious, or ideological objectives."s

How would you honestly react if say, liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes advocated terrorists hitting Crawford, TX?? You'd be furious and rightly so.

If a liberal talk show host said the same thing as O'Reilly I would comdemn them just as strongly as I have O'Reilly.

Isabella di Pesto said...


You call yourself a Logician?

Remember this little diatribe over at your blog?:

"Hey, all you liberals...Al Franken must be reading your blogs! Doesn't that make you feel special? He proposes something some of you have suggested...executions for government officials. He does have some misgivings about executing a sitting president, though. That's nice.

Some call it satire; I call it criminal. As to what mode of execution, we'll have to wait with baited breath; he's such a fount of good ideas! Can anyone say reign of terror?"

And this is what Franken ACTUALLY said:

"And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,”

Franken qualified his hard-edged satire:

"Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like."

Franken later suggested that President Bush is at risk of receiving the same punishment, since Karl Rove likely told him what he did, but he added a caveat: “I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."

Now UL, you called that bit of satire "criminal" and got your knickers in a twist over it.

However, when Bill O'Reilly advocates a terrorist attack on San Francisco, because he doesn't agree with what the people of that city DEMOCRATICALLY voted for on election day, you call that rhetorical?

It's too, too. Wouldn't you agree?