Bill O’Reilly: “Muslims killed us on 9/11”

Bill O’Reilly stirs up a hornet nest with his commentary that “Muslims killed us on 9/11” causing Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to storm off the set of ‘The View’.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Bill O’Reilly: “Muslims killed us on 9/11”

  1. shiloh says:

    Who is this Billo of which you speak?This is fixednoise playbook as they send out their missionaries πŸ˜‰ to stoke the flames, spread their hatred ie be outrageous! so as to keep their flock of sheep back home in wingnutville happy! ie ratings.Their teabagger, yahoo lemmings eat this shit up. fixednoise philosophy: one cannot be too over the top when it comes to winger viewership.Hey, most of their hench er spokesmen don’t even try to portray themselves as fair and balanced nowadays. Their dog won’t hunt anymore …hmm, just wasted a couple minutes on fixednoise that I’ll never get back.

  2. shrinkers says:

    Pretty amazing. O’Rielly is all about whipping up the lunacy, isn’t he?

  3. Mainer says:

    No saddly their are those out there to whom the answer is kill all the Muslims and we will be safe…..had this discussion just this last week and thought the lad would swallow his uppers when it was explained that there are about 1.2 billion of them give or take a few hundred million.Keep bellowing Billo give the fanatics a few more recruitment videos. Could we have dealt with this in a more ignorant manner? I want to win this or at least control it and we have those in our ranks that just don’t get it. Why should people like myself and my family have to keep fighting because blowhards like Billo and others are not bright enough to keep their damned inflamatory mouths shut? Man this cranks me.

  4. WA7th says:

    If two weeks goes by without someone storming off the set of that show, that means “The View” has lost it’s edge. No doubt Mr O was counting on it. It’s their shtick. Morning network shows practically invented dumb-down media. “The View” is not much of an improvement upon Walter Cronkite with a lion puppet, or Joe Garagiola.

  5. GROG says:

    It amazes me how you guys on the fringe left cannot grasp the reality that Muslims killed 3000 people on 9/11. Somebody states the fact that it was Muslims and you accuse them of hatred and lunacy. You call them fanatics.It’s YOU who are the fanatics. YOU are in the minority. NOT O’Reilly.

  6. shortchain says:

    GROG,Actually, it was fanatics who killed 3000 people on 9/11/2001. I’m of the opinion, having known a lot of Muslims over my life, that there’s nothing inherently Muslim about their fanaticism, nor anything inherently fanatic about Islam, so saying it was “Muslims” is about as relevant as saying it was “people” who committed the act.Try that out, GROG. Pick someone of your acquaintance and say to them “it was people who committed 9/11!” See the response you get.

  7. shrinkers says:

    about as relevant as saying it was “people” who committed the act.It was guys! It was guys with two arms each! It was guys who were not atheists!We’ve got to keep religious men with two arms off our airplanes. Better, let’s lock up all the bastards. Send them to Gitmo and torture the lot of ’em.GROG, the fact they the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim has as much to do with it as the fact the Tim McVeigh was a Christian. Otherwise, we’ve have 1.2+ billion people hijacking airplanes. The issue is insane fanaticism, and no religion is immune to that.Do the math. Christians are just as likely to blow up a Federal building, or murder a doctor, or lynch an innocent gay teenager. Or start a holy war (ever hear of the Crusades?) We shouldn’t have a single church in Oklahoma City. That’s an insult to those who died.Attitudes such as O’Reilly’s are the best recruiting tool al Qaeda has. One might begin to think that FOX works for the terrorists (they don’t really — but they couldn’t help al Qaeda more if they did).

  8. GROG says:

    They didn’t blow up the World Trade Center in the name of being “people” or in the name of being “guys”. They did it in the name of Islam. That’s just a fact.Tim McVeigh didn’t blow up the Federal Buidling in the name of Christianity. In fact, he wasn’t even a Christian. That’s a left wing media lig.

  9. shortchain says:

    GROG,The 9/11 hijackers didn’t, as a matter of fact, crash planes into the WTC in the name of “Islam”. They did it in the name of al Qaeda, whose goals are to foment a religious war between Islam and the West.This has all been explained to you multiple times. You seem incapable of learning.As for McVeigh: “McVeigh invited California conductor/composer David Woodard to perform a pre-requiem (a Mass for those who are about to die), on the eve of his execution. He had also requested a Catholic chaplain.”Hmmm. Obviously the action of a devout atheist.

  10. filistro says:

    @GROG… and it was Americans who committed the hideous atrocities at Abu Ghraib. What’s more, they did it in the name of America, while wearing American uniforms.It gives those of us in the rest of the world every right to just HATE Americans.Right?

  11. Mule Rider says:

    GROG’s point, and I think it’s a valid one, though we may differ somewhat in how we get there, is that ultimately the far left in this country – which most of you that inhabit this site seem to identify with, whether you admit it or not – seem to have more contempt and hatred for Bill O’Reilly and people like him than the people who terrorized us on 9/11 and their sympathizers. It’s a bit troubling….no disturbing…that you guys direct more of your angst at red-blooded, law-abiding, hard-working citizens of the US, even if their views lean a bit too much into jingoism, Islamaphobia, etc., rather than cold-blooded killers and terrorists from foreign lands who openly hate this country and pray/wish for its destruction. I’ve got news for you, whatever you want to call them (people, Muslims, fanatics, etc.), THEY are the ones who are your enemy, NOT Bill O’Reilly and his ilk. But you wouldn’t know that listening to you guys froth at the mouth.

  12. filistro says:

    @Muley: I’ve got news for you, whatever you want to call them (people, Muslims, fanatics, etc.), THEY are the ones who are your enemy,Those are pretty big categories, Muley. Let’s break them down.a.) People… 7,800,000,000b.) Muslims.. 1,200,000,000c.) Killer Fanatics..100,000 (app.)So… you think it appropriate to look on all of (b) as your enemy because .0001% of them fall into category (c)?

  13. GROG says:

    @fili,Who said anything about hating all Muslims? O’Reilly called the 9/11 terrorists Muslims, which they are, and everyone went crazy.Are you asking if we can call the American soldiers Americans? Of course we can. They’re Americans. @shortchain,McVeigh was in no way a Christian. He was a lying, adultering, murderer. He did not believe in Jesus Christ and rarely attended church. He claimed many times to have believed in the “religion of science” and to have been agnostic. He was in no way a Christian.

  14. filistro says:

    @GROG.. Are you asking if we can call the American soldiers Americans?No… I’m asking you if Muslims would be justified in holding all Americans responsible for the behavior of those few American soldiers.

  15. Mule Rider says:

    filistro,My point is that the fringe left in this country seems to have more contempt and hatred for their allegedly jingoistic brothers and sisters who are Americans but are otherwise hard-working, law-abiding citizens but don’t seem to have the backbone to direct that contempt at where it belongs, to the people who want to kill us.We can debate what to call them – and I’ll freely admit it’s doing us all a disservice to cavalierlly lump them in with all “Muslims” – but let’s not tear ourselves down with such hate and forget who the true enemy is. That’s what the left seems to have done.

  16. Mule Rider says:

    “I’m asking you if Muslims would be justified in holding all Americans responsible for the behavior of those few American soldiers.”They would have justifiable anger at all Americans if we don’t collectively repudiate those actions and punish them. Much like how we yearn for “moderate” or “mainstream” Islam to repudiate and punish their fanatics. While in some cases they do, other times they fall woefully short.

  17. GROG says:

    No… I’m asking you if Muslims would be justified in holding all Americans responsible for the behavior of those few American soldiers.No I wouldn’t and neither would Bill O’Reilly. That’s not what anyone that I know of is saying.

  18. filistro says:

    @Muley… They would have justifiable anger at all Americans if we don’t collectively repudiate those actions and punish them. Much like how we yearn for “moderate” or “mainstream” Islam to repudiate and punish their fanatics. While in some cases they do, other times they fall woefully short.That’s true… but there’s truth on both sides. Islam did “repudiate and punish their fanatics” (though it’s harder for a religion to do so than a nation whch has some actaul legal power over its citizens.) Still, there were many fatwas issued condemning fanaticism and suicide attacks. I even recall the United States getting a message of condolence from Hezbollah in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.It’s also fact, though, that not all Americans repudiated teh Abu Ghraib atrocities. In fact there was small portion of America that exulted in it, and relished seeing “those evil little buggers” mocked, shamed and degraded.In fact (since people are pretty much the same everywhere) the percentage of Americans who enjoyed the spectacle of Abu Ghraib was probably about the same numerically as the percentage of Muslims who liked watching the towers fall.

  19. filistro says:

    @GROG… No I wouldn’t and neither would Bill O’Reilly. That’s not what anyone that I know of is saying.Then how can you possibly object to a Muslim community/prayer center in NYC?

  20. filistro says:

    @Muley… I do agree with you about the hate and division in the country right now. I think this election has come at exactly the wrong time… because an election creates an adversarial atmosphere, when what all of us really need to do is work together to solve our problems… not retreat into armed camps and fire cannons at each other across neutral territory.(Which is why I like to hug my Mule and give him a nice scratch behind the ears every chance I get… πŸ˜‰

  21. shiloh says:

    Filistro, did you give Undeniable that big juicy kiss yesterday?Just wonderin’ as you were pretty damn excited to have your biggest, bestest buddy back in the fold, eh. ;)Too funny!take care, blessings

  22. Mainer says:

    Yup we all know the right is the group that will save us in this time of danger. Except your ham handed, ignorant chest thumping cowboy mentality has screwed the pooch on this at almost evry turn. I don’t give a rats ass that you come on here and run off at the mouth about how all of us on the left are less patriotic, surrender monkeys and worse but every time some one such as O’blowhard do it on national tv you can bet your sure as hell it is going to be used to recruit more people to come at us and to sow more distrust in the minds of people that really have little to distrust us for. You clowns can’t stop running you ignorant, ill informed mouths long enough to figure out how we are ever going to get this mess to some sort of successfu resolution (on’t even go with we have to win because there is no win here, not now maybe not ever) so that people like me and my sons and family can stop going to horrid places to back up your big freaking mouth. Either put the uniform on and go be the next target or get the hell out of the way so the adults can maybe just maybe get this mess to where we can tolerate it and get on with life…..but in the mean time will you please try and not give the bad guys (who yes happen to be Muslim)any more crap to build recruiting posters with.

  23. filistro says:

    shiloh, I don’t hate people just because they are on the right. And while Muley may be rude and offensive to some, he is always nice to me. Why should I hate him?If my car broke down late at night on an isolated back road, either Mainer or Muley would be a very welcome sight to me, and I’m sure either of them would do whatever it took to help me out. And they wouldn’t be checking my political leanings in advance of giving a hand.Muley is CORRECT when he says that hatred is dividing the country when we should be united against a common enemy. We differ in the identity of the enemy… Muley thinks it’s Muslim fanatics, while I think they are petty annoyance, like ants at a picnic (and are only able to hurt us if we over-react.). The REAL enemy is global economic malaise… and that’s what we all need to concentrate on.As for hating people.. . what’s the point, really? I don’t hate anybody… except for the haters. Skinheads, Nazis, anti-Semites., professional haters… I loathe them.

  24. Mainer says:

    As fired up as I get from time to time I also have little time to waste on hate. Ok there are the Yankees and he Colts…..but that isn’t really hate. Hmmmm at times flat landers kind of get under my skin but they just clog up the rods gawking around and they do always seem to bring money…..I guess I just reserve my fired up moments for gross ignorance.

  25. filistro says:

    Mainer… righteous indignation is not “hate”. It’s a totally different animal. And when our Maine Man gets really indignant about something, I want to set out a lawn chair, watch and applaud πŸ™‚

  26. shortchain says:

    GROG,Defining a Christian by acts is logically invalid. It’s belief, not behavior, that does it.That he committed heinous acts does not make him not a Christian (see: Inquisition, or see: Catholic Church during WWII or any of dozens of other examples).But do explain, please, why a non-Christian would ask for a Catholic chaplain?I’ve got to say, for the group, that I’m not impressed with Mule Rider. It appears enamored of hyperbole and seems to love to throw up straw men and then flail away at them.For my part, I consider Bill O’Reilly a person who spreads ignorance. Being rather fond of knowledge and reasoning, I think he’s a useless waste of oxygen, and anybody who thinks he contributes anything worthwhile to the public debate is welcome to point out where he has shown anything that resulted in

  27. shortchain says:

    Mule Rider,Which of the commenters here displayed any “hate” for Bill O’Reilly? Because it seems to me you are creating a straw man.I do have a bit of disdain, intermingled with pity, for those who are so dim they are unable to see through O’Reilly’s pretense of reasonableness to his underlying rigid right-wing ideology.

  28. shrinkers says:

    @Mulebut let’s not tear ourselves down with such hate and forget who the true enemy is.With is, I agree completely.So tell me — who (or what) do you think the “real enemy” is?

  29. GROG says:

    Then how can you possibly object to a Muslim community/prayer center in NYC?I object to the Mosque at Ground Zero because Muslim terrorists killed 3,000 people there in the name of Islam. Muslim radicals continue to want to destroy the American way of life.It’s tacky, insensitive, and disgraceful to build the Mosque at that location. The intent of that location is to provoke Americans and stir up animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims. And my opinion main stream.

  30. GROG says:

    shortchain,If you think by asking for a Catholic Chaplin, makes him a Christian, you have no idea what Christianity is.

  31. Jeff says:

    Here’s a relatively balanced take on the West vs. IslamAnd by a Canadian, which should make filistro happy!http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249704/islam-and-west-conrad-black

  32. Mule Rider says:

    “that I’m not impressed with Mule Rider.”Right back at ya, bud.

  33. shortchain says:

    GROG,I didn’t claim McVeigh was a Christian. You claimed he wasn’t. The onus is then on you to prove that assertion. Asking for a mass and a priest is pretty strong evidence that he wasn’t an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu. (Did you ever notice that it’s only the Believers who have to be capitalized? The nonbelievers, atheists, agnostics and the like, they’re just fine in lower case.)It seems to me that, since being a Christian is a matter of belief — and BTW, GROG, I was raised Christian, so I know perfectly well what being a Christian means, which it is not clear you understand — you cannot prove your assertion, especially in the face of evidence like I presented.

  34. Realist says:

    @GROG,The intent of that location is to provoke Americans and stir up animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims. And my opinion main stream.Two statements very much in conflict. The first is written as a statement of fact, not opinion. And, to that statement of “fact,” all I ask for is evidence that the intent is to stir up animosity.To the second statement, which you apparently are using as evidence to support the first, are you unaware of any instances in human history where the majority had a particular opinion about the world that didn’t in fact line up with reality? I can name a bunch of them if you have difficulty.

  35. shortchain says:

    MR,I don’t expect to impress. On the other hand, when I put a comment in, I try to make it have at least an iota of something that could be mistaken for insight.Your comments are mostly just an empty reflection, like that last one. No thought, merely a knee-jerk.

  36. Mule Rider says:

    The onus is then on you to prove that assertionAhhh, someone went to the David Axelrod School of Assert, Deflect, and Force the Other Guy to Prove His Point When You Have No Evidence to Prove Your Own

  37. filistro says:

    The intent of that location is to provoke Americans and stir up animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims. And my opinion (is) main stream.Mclever… is this statement of GROG’s an illustration of what “begging the question” really means… or am I still not fully understanding that expression?

  38. The Real Mike Is Back says:

    Ah, nothing like the rabid stench of Mule Rider to ruin this board. Don’t worry, sweetheart. You’ll get your GOP tidal wave in a few weeks. Then you’ll get your repeal of health care and an impeachment in the House, too. No matter that small provision that requires 67 votes in the Senate. Enjoy it all.

  39. Mule Rider says:

    “something that could be mistaken for insight.”If you missed the point…er insight… that we seem to spend more time/effort/energy hating/despising/mocking each other (fellow Americans) in THIS country who are mostly hard-working, decent people but have lost our edge in standing up to religious fanatics and other lunatics around the world who openly wish or even plan for our destruction, then I don’t know if I can help you.

  40. Mule Rider says:

    @The Real Dumbass is Back,Project much? When have I ever voiced support of repealing health care or impeachment (of the President I’m assuming?)?

  41. Mule Rider says:

    @shortchain,Your silence in condemning TRMIB for a very insightLESS comment with obtuse projections and strawmen is deafening.

  42. shortchain says:

    MR,What, are we supposed to all get together and have a 2-minute hate for all the evil people out there? How Orwellian. And meanwhile, the boneheaded pundits and wrongheaded politicians we have in our country, who actually have an impact on our lives, unlike those you wish to castigate, get a pass?How idiotic. Until Moqtada al Sadr gets his own show on CNN or MSNBC, where he can interview Osama bin Laden, or Dick Cheney (and cut off his microphone), I vote we keep an eye on O’Reilly’s idiocy — especially as there are quite a few people yet who seem unaware of Bill’s blatant bullshitting.But then I see by your comment about evidence that you are an “up is down” commenter. Expecting insight from you is a complete waste of time.

  43. mclever says:

    filistro, whether or not Mule is begging the question, his modus operandi appears to be provocation using a combination of bluster, argument by assertion, and strawmen.While not a textbook example of “A is true because A,” I would tend to agree that his assertion regarding the location of the NYC Muslim community center could be seen as an example of begging the question, because he clearly is assuming his conclusion when he posits his assertion without evidence (other than opinion, which basically echoes his premise). Nowhere does he offer evidence for the actual motives of those building the downtown facility aka “Ground Zero Mosque” )which isn’t actually *at* Ground Zero).:-)

  44. Mule Rider says:

    “Expecting insight from you is a complete waste of time.”Then you might want to look into using that “ignore” feature in your brain. Clearly your definition of who and who does not provide insight is based solely on whether or not what they say agrees with your worldview and NOT whether or not it’s an actual contribution to the discussion.Otherwise, you should be very disappointed in someone like TRMIB ejaculating a nonsensical projection about me wishing for a GOP tidal wave, a repeal of health care, and impeachment for the President when I’ve articulated none of those desires. @mclever,Um, do you have me mixed up with GROG? I think you may need to re-read what’s been said the last 20 or so posts.

  45. mclever says:

    Actually, filistro, Mule’s argument that “this is true because the majority say so” is called Argumentum ad populum. It’s typically considered a type of “red herring” fallacy, designed to derail conversation by distracting from the main point. (i.e. You end up arguing against “the majority” instead of arguing the merits, of which none are presented.)

  46. mclever says:

    Mule, I apologize if I’ve mixed you with GROG. I was replying to the question of whether something constituted “begging the question” and did not pay attention to proper attribution.

  47. filistro says:

    mclever… Okay, I’m getting it now. (This is something I’ve NEVER been able to understand until you explained it. You are clearly a gifted teacher.)So if the statement had been: The intent of that location is to provoke Americans and stir up animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims. That is why NYC residents oppose it. That would be begging the question… because assumption B is based on false premise A?Thank you for being so patient πŸ™‚

  48. GROG says:

    And my opinion (is) main stream.I made this statement because some here like to paint us on the right as a bunch of far right, winger, lunatics, when in fact our opinions are overwhelmingly main stream. It wasn’t meant to prove any statement. O’Reilly made a statement that the majority of Americans agree with. It’s the Behars and Goldbergs of the world who are with the minority, which is fine. But don’t portray us some kind of fanatics.

  49. GROG says:

    “this is true because the majority say so”I never made that argument.

  50. mclever says:

    filistro, While there’s definitely some logical fallacy there, coming to conclusions based on unfounded assertions is not always begging the question. Keep in mind that for truly “begging the question,” the conclusion is usually a paraphrase or restatement of the original premise, usually disguised by language and fluff so that it isn’t obvious.A better (more strict) example would be:The intent of the location is to provoke Americans and stir up animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims. They chose that specific location to stir up opposition among NYC residents and 9/11 survivors, because they knew it would make them angry.(Notice that my two sentences basically say the same thing, but I’ve written them such as to imply that sentence 2 somehow supports sentence 1, even though it offers no real evidence other than examples of provocation. In both sentences I’m attributing unproven motive.)In your example, if the “why NYC residents oppose it” referred implicitly to the “intent to provoke and stir up animosity”, then that could be considered begging the question. It just isn’t quite as clearly so.:-)

  51. mclever says:

    GROG, “mainstream” or not doesn’t make it right. You say the folks who want to build (upgrade) a Muslim community center in downtown Manhattan have chosen that location with the intent of provocation, yet every evidence I can find of the proponents’ own words suggests that they were hoping for the opposite. (Google it. They talk about “peace”, “interfaith”, “welcoming of all”, “community outreach”, “education”, etc.) My quick Google search suggests that the “mainstream” opinion is wrong, even if we accept your assertion that the opinion is the mainstream.

  52. filistro says:

    OK mclever, I’ve got it now. I was missing the element of redundancy.So: “People are fat because they eat too much chocolate, which proves people could be slimmer if they would only eat less chocolate.”Right?I wonder how it came to be called “begging the question.” I think 99% of us (including all those not fortunate enough to have a mclever in their lives πŸ˜‰ think it means “demanding to be asked.”

  53. Mule Rider says:

    “think it means “demanding to be asked.””Maybe in a roundabout way it does mean that. Let me explain using your example.Somebody makes the statement, “People are fat because they eat too much chocolate, which proves people could be slimmer if they would only eat less chocolate”Which demands a question for proof be asked, such as:”How does that prove that eating less chocolate will make you slimmer?”Leaving the “question begger” looking stunned and unable to answer.

  54. GROG says:

    mcclever,Why are you guys afraid to acknowledge that the site is at ground zero? Does it hurt your argument?A piece of one of the airplanes fell through the roof of the building that used to occupy the space. The ground zero location is in terrible taste.

  55. filistro says:

    @Muley Leaving the “question begger” looking stunned and unable to answer.LOL… Maybe you’re right. We’ll see what mclever says about origin.

  56. Realist says:

    @GROG,O’Reilly made a statement that the majority of Americans agree with.And, in fact, the statement is irrefutable. The subtext, which reads as “Muslims killed us on 9/11 (because they’re Muslims)” is the much more readily refuted. I’d be curious to know whether a majority of Americans believe that they attacked us specifically because they’re Muslim. Not that it makes it correct even if they do, but I’d be curious nonetheless.Why are you guys afraid to acknowledge that the site is at ground zero? Does it hurt your argument?Not “afraid,” just that it’s a loaded and misleading term. I’m pretty sure that “Ground Zero,” to most Americans, refers to the big hole in the ground upon which the World Trade Center stood.And, frankly, it doesn’t hurt my argument, which is that the First Amendment trumps all of the other crap.

  57. filistro says:

    @GROG…The ground zero location is in terrible taste.The thing is, people on the right think the motivation for the Muslim center is some kind of unseemly triumphalism or gloating over the 9/11 attack. That never even occurred to the builders of the center because they don’t feel the attack had anything to do with them and their religion… any more than YOU feel Tim McVeigh’s actions had anything to do with YOUR religion, even though you and McVeigh are both white, male, American and of Christian background. The Muslims in NYC think Al Qaeda and its followers are a bunch of fanatic killers, and a terrible, tragic, horrific perversion of Islam. I saw Imam Rauf, their leader, say that if there were another attack, it would be his duty as a peaceful Muslim to “stand between the attackers and my fellow Americans, to protect my fellow Americans and die for them if necessary…”

  58. GROG says:

    (because they’re Muslims)”Did he say “because they’re Muslims”?

  59. Realist says:

    @GROG,Did he say “because they’re Muslims”?If he didn’t mean “because they’re Muslims,” then why bring it up at all? Why not refer to them as humans, or men, or men with dark hair?Is it your assertion that the words were chosen at random? If not, then what was the reason for that particular choice of words?

  60. GROG says:

    Realist,This has been discussed above already, but it’s because Muslims crashed planes into the WTC and they did it in the name of Islam. They didn’t do it in the name of being “humans”, or being “men”, or being “men with dark hair”. They did it in the name of their religion, which is Muslim.

  61. Realist says:

    @GROG,They did it in the name of their religion, which is Muslim.Or, in other words, they did it because they’re Muslim. See? Did he have to say those words? No. You got the message.

  62. mclever says:

    filistro,”Begging the question” is a translation of Latin phrase “petitio principii” or “petitio quaesiti” which is a translation of the Greek from Aristotle who said: “[B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself…either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical.”It can also be translated as “assuming the question” or “requesting the [primary] premise,” if you want to get literal.Mule’s apt explanation is as good as any. It “begs” the listener to “question” the logic when someone uses the unfounded supposition of the premise as proof of the same premise.:-)BTW, “begging the question” can involve dissertation-length convolution, or it can happen in a single sentence. If someone manages to beg the question in a single statement, that’s called “hysteron proteron”.”Diet Coke tastes good because I like it.” <– I've posited and asserted all in a single statement!

  63. shrinkers says:

    They did it in the name of their religion, which is Muslim.And fanatics have killed doctors and lynched gay teenagers in the name of their religion, which is Christian. So no church should be built anywhere near a hospital or a school.Any nutcase can do any crazy thing “in the name of” anything they please. This reflects on the person doing the stupid thing, not on the thing named.We tortured and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib “in the name of” America. Does that reflect on America? No, it says something only about the people who authorized and committed those heinous acts. If someone went out and killed a few thousand Americans “in the name of” GROG, does that mean you are guilty of mass murder? No, it means some crazy person was inappropriately using your handle.You’re making a rather senseless argument.

  64. mclever says:

    GROG, Re: why I point out that it isn’t technically at Ground Zero.I’m not “afraid”, but I find the reference to be misleading and politically charged. Most people think “at Ground Zero” means that it’s actually on top of the ruins of the WTC. I had the privilege of being in Manhattan this past week, and I made a point of walking past the sites in mention. From the street where the “Ground Zero Mosque” will be, one cannot even see the WTC site a couple blocks away. So saying it’s “at Ground Zero” is misleading. Yes, it’s very nearby, but so are several other churches and religious buildings. The proposed site meets zoning requirements, which anything “at” the WTC site probably would not. Furthermore, there is ALREADY a functioning Muslim worship space at the site, and their “building” amounts to re-building and merging two structures into one. If any other church could be built at this location, then there is no justification for denying one sect over another. So, I’m still not seeing why this should be a big deal in a country that purports to be the freest in the world. Freedom of Religion and all that Bill of Rights stuff, ya know?

  65. filistro says:

    Thanks mclever, I learned something today. I like when that happens.Well, I actually learned TWO things…1.) what “begging the question” actually means, so I can use it correctly henceforth2.) that our Muley is a Latin and Greek scholar :-)Way to go, Muley!

  66. DC Petterson says:

    The clear implication of O’Reilly’s words is, “Islam attacked the United States.” This is, of course, false.We should rather say, “Insane madmen attacked a number of landmarks for the purpose of inciting warfare, and tried to hide their irrationality with an inappropriate appeal to religion.”To the extent that many Americans blame Islam, the 9/11 criminals succeeded in their goals. Their desire was to encourage war between Islam and non-Islamic states. We see conservative commentators and politicians also encouraging such a war. Their methods, as with the 9/11 criminals, are to sow fear and division, to set Islam and the West against each other.The idea that it is somehow in “bad taste” for an existing Islamic community center a few blocks from the World Trade Center to be modernized and rebuilt is an example of very sorts of division that both the 9/11 criminals and American conservatives seek. One forgets that hundreds of innocent Muslims died on 9/11, and that two mosques were destroyed at the WTC site.The appeal to fear and to jingoism is precisely a terrorist tactic — terrorism being the technique of using fear to achieve one’s goals. The whole point of the exercise is to just off rational thought, and to cause a population to react violently and irrationally. O’Reilly is certainly well-practiced at this technique.

  67. filistro says:

    Re: Blowhard Billo and the Bloviatiors..We really need to understand the mindset we’re dealing with here, which is both ignorant and implacable (a truly terrible combination.) When Imam Rauf, the organizing force behind the “Ground Zero Mosuqe” said publicly on “60 Minutes” that if there were another attack, it would be his duty as a peaceful Muslim to “stand between the attackers and his fellow Americans”… all the Freepers rose up as one and howled… “Did you hear that??? THE SLIMY BASTARD IS THREATENING US!!!” Sigh…

  68. GROG says:

    @Realist and fili,That begs the question:Let’s say 100,000 people show up at a tea party rally and ONE person has a racist sign. The Left automatically labels anyone who has ever attended a tea party rally a racist. Is that person a racist because he’s a tea partier? Or is he a tea partier because he’s a racist? The difference here is that no one on the right is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. They are saying however, that Muslims killed 3000 people on 9/11. Not because they’re Muslims, just that they were Muslims and did it in the name of their religion.

  69. mclever says:

    Well said, DC.I was unaware of the two mosques destroyed on 9/11. I shall add that to my mental database.Your characterization of Bill O’Reilly is precisely why I refuse to watch him.

  70. Mule Rider says:

    “And fanatics have killed doctors and lynched gay teenagers”You know, I actually agree (for the most part) with the rest of your post after this line, but you (and others) always seem to trot these first two items out, especially about the killing of (abortion) doctors, as if they’re comparable in magnitude (although I’ll agree they’re comparable in egregiousness). Shrinkers, the killing of an abortion doctor is an extremely rare event. No less despicable but extremely rare. As is the lynching of a gay teenager or bullying of one to suicide. All are heinous acts but they pale in comparison to the number of deaths worldwide in the name of Islam. Are Muslims at large to blame for these atrocities? No. Only the radical few who commit them? However, don’t act like abortion doctors and gay teenagers (or other oppressed groups in the West) are dying at the hands of Christians at near the same frequency as people dying at the hands of Islam in the Middle East. It’s exponentially smaller.

  71. Mule Rider says:

    “hundreds of innocent Muslims died on 9/11″I think this is a dubious claim not based in fact. I don’t doubt that some Muslims were killed and they were equally disturbed by the atrocity but “hundreds”?Do you have any proof that at least 200 (the minimum threshold to be considered “hundreds”) Muslims were among the dead of the nearly 3,000 on 9/11?

  72. mclever says:

    GROG, and therefore, because a tiny subset of fanatical Muslims claimed to do something in the name of their religion, we should withhold our support from those peaceful Muslims who wish to repudiate the fanatics?Somehow, that logic seems flawed to me. It seems, that if we want to undermine the fanatics, then we should be depriving them of their support by building positive, productive relationships with those leaders who are willing to speak against the fanatics. Like the Imam who’s in charge of the NYC building project.

  73. GROG says:

    mclever said:So, I’m still not seeing why this should be a big deal in a country that purports to be the freest in the world. Freedom of Religion and all that Bill of Rights stuff, ya know?This is why myself and the majority of my fellow American are allowed to voice our opinions on the matter. We’re not saying they don’t have a constitutional right, we just don’t think it’s appropriate.The consitution and all that Bill of Rights stuff allows us to have that opinion.

  74. Mule Rider says:

    GROG makes a very subtle but salient point among the shouting about BillO and the “Ground Zero Mosque” and how we characterize all Muslims vs. fanatics. The Left has no problem labeling an entire movement (Tea Party) as something disgusting (“evil” and “racist” are words that come to mind) based on the actions and words of a few.

  75. filistro says:

    Okay GROG, I’ll try one last time because I think you’re a decent guy who will answer honestly.So… Abu Ghraib prison is situated on the western outskrits of Baghdad. At that prison a couple dozen American soldiers brutalized and degraded hundreds of Muslim prisoners, and caused a massive cataclysm throughout the entire Arab world.Let’s say the American military years ago acquired a piece of land two blocks from the prison on which they have long planned to build a rec center for the families of American servicemen, encompassing a playground, chapel, kid’s activity complex, swimming pools and so forth. It is hoped to share the facilities with local Iraqis and help them build a better understanding and rapport with the Americans.Should the military change their plans for their community center because of the actions of small group of American soldiers at the nearby prison? Would it be “in bad taste” for them to proceed… or would canceling the building be giving that ugly, evil behavior more recognition than it deserves?

  76. GROG says:

    mclever said:It seems, that if we want to undermine the fanatics, then we should be depriving them of their support by building positive, productive relationships with those leaders who are willing to speak against the fanatics. Like the Imam who’s in charge of the NYC building project.The majority of Americans are skeptical of this portrayal of a peace loving Imam due to the fact that he wants to build it a ground zero. NYC is a big place. There are plenty of other less controversial places to build the mosque.

  77. shortchain says:

    It was actually several dozen of the victims of 9/11/2001 that were Muslim.As if that makes a difference. Also, is it really less egregious for a lone individual to hunt down and kill a specific individual in his church than for a group of fanatics to kill a more or less random 3000 group of people, including women and children?I don’t know what metric of horror people imagine would allow such comparisons. Evil and misguided is evil and misguided.

  78. mclever says:

    GROG,They already have a Muslim worship center at that location. So, you’re suggesting they should MOVE it after the fact? I’m not convinced that any location in NYC would be far enough away to satisfy those who are beating the unconstitutional, anti-freedom drumbeats against allowing this community to upgrade their existing center.shortchain,That list of several dozen is incomplete, because it does not include the firemen, EMTs, and other first responders who died. Nor does it include anyone from the Pentagon. I’m not saying the number of Muslim victims reaches the “hundreds”, but it certainly isn’t a trivial number. It’s simply difficult to ascertain, because none of the official recordkeeping makes any note of the victims’ religion.

  79. Mule Rider says:

    Cold-blooded killing is equally heinous however it’s applied but the fact remains that one lone individual hunted down and killed versus 3,000 randomly slaughtered means that in the former case, there are 2,999 fewer people dead. We always place a higher contempt on people or groups that spread their carnage over a wider range of targets.

  80. Mule Rider says:

    Or the next time some guy guys berserk and shoots a couple of people dead where he used to work, maybe you could just say, “Well, he might as well knocked off 20 more because it’s all the same either way.”Fewer victims = better (or less tragic) situation. Every time.

  81. GROG says:

    @fili,These are 2 completely different circumstances. 3000 people weren’t murdered at Abu Ghraib. They were prisoners of war, not civilians. We were in the Middle East for a noble cause in the first place. We freed millions of Muslims from the murderous regime and raping of Sadam Husein. 9/11 changed the world. Abu Ghraib did not. There’s a web of radical Islamists around the world who try every day to kill us. American serviceman are not plotting every day to kill Iraqis.So, yes I think it would be well accepted for the military to build a community center near the prison.

  82. GROG says:

    Hey fili! We’re all talking issues here! Isn’t it great!

  83. filistro says:

    @GROG.. Hey fili! We’re all talking issues here! Isn’t it great!Yes, I’m loving it. (Notice how as soon as Muley arrives, everybody quits whacking each other with Barbie dolls and we all get polite, serious, and engaged in substantive issues πŸ˜‰ LOL…As for Abu Ghraib:*3000 people weren’t murdered at Abu Ghraib.* Those who were raped and degraded would much rather have died. The Muslim faith chooses death before dishonor. *They were prisoners of war, not civilians.* So it’s okay to brutalize them?*We were in the Middle East for a noble cause in the first place. We freed millions of Muslims from the murderous regime and raping of Sadam Husein.* AHA! BEGGING THE QUESTION! *9/11 changed the world. Abu Ghraib did not.* Not from the Arab POV, where Abu Ghraib was (and still is) a Big F***ing Deal*There’s a web of radical Islamists around the world who try every day to kill us. American serviceman are not plotting every day to kill Iraqis.* Again, there are millions of Muslims who believe otherwise. Would you have us give in to them?*So, yes I think it would be well accepted for the military to build a community center near the prison.* Good for you. So do I.

  84. mclever says:

    From my perspective, what GROG’s argument boils down to, is that the terrorists are winning. When he states (as the alleged mainstream opinion) that we should suppress freedom and promote government interference in religious matters, that’s a statement of fear–of terror. The stated goal of the terrorists was to make Westerners hate Muslims, and apparently they’ve achieved their goal for a significant portion of our nation. They want to provoke war, and then sit back and laugh in their mountains while the world burns.Please, people! If we’re better than they are, then we shouldn’t succumb to such obvious ploys by fundamentalist extremists! We, as the stronger, more secure people, should embrace the Muslim community center as proof that we will not be cowed by threats or violence from impotent, manipulative blowhards hiding in desert mountains. Deny the extremists their power!Every day that we give up our freedoms to those who want us to fear is another day that the terrorists win. Attempting to block the community center is an act of fear, not the act of a proud and victorious people.

  85. filistro says:

    @McleverWe, as the stronger, more secure people, should embrace the Muslim community center as proof that we will not be cowed by threats or violence from impotent, manipulative blowhards hiding in desert mountains. Deny the extremists their power! Every day that we give up our freedoms to those who want us to fear is another day that the terrorists win. Attempting to block the community center is an act of fear, not the act of a proud and victorious people.That is profoundly sane, exquisitely phrased… and ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

  86. shiloh says:

    @filistroI don’t hate people just because they are on the right. And while Muley may be rude and offensive to some, he is always nice to me. Why should I hate him?~~~~~Damn, supposedly cool, calm, collected er reasonable filistro is now putting words in my mouth!Very, very disappointing! :(As mentioned a couple times at 538, I didn’t even hate Nixon ’cause it takes a lot of effort to hate someone and not many people are worth that kind of energy, certainly not MR er Shots er Michael er Undeniable er shilohbuster er whatever …So not only does writer Filistro have trouble w/the definition of words ie the difference between hatred and sarcasm, she has now joined Jeffrey and Bartles w/over the top hyperbole. hmm, must have hurt her feelings w/my sarcasm as a lot of folk seem to be on edge at 538 as the mid-terms near, eh. Indeed Filistro, please look up the definition of hatred and sarcasm in the dictionary, think of it as a refresher course.Just sayin’And then she uses an inane hypothetical back road scenario. hmm, fili and Mule on a back road, ok I won’t go there …>Yea, there was a 2/3 mo. period in 2009 when I totally avoided Mule’s post, np. But he kept bringin’ up my name again and again and again and again as his ad nauseam baiting was never ending lol soooo I decided to play w/him. Hey, liberals are empathetic! :)And although makin’ fun of his childishness is wayyy too easy, I do enjoy an occasional jab, as like most 538 winger trolls he’s a 24/7 “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.ok, that last part was a lie and apologies to Winston Churchill.carry on

  87. Mule Rider says:

    “ad nauseam baiting”shiloh, one could easily argue that your sole purpose in life is this. That’s all you ever do and for you to supposedly call somebody else on it is the biggest pot/kettle/black moment I think I’ve ever seen.

  88. Mule Rider says:

    Jeff called you out on it just a couple of days ago. The puerile and relentless sarcasm and cleverish witticisms…a sprinkle here or there is one thing but that’s your ENTIRE schtick. I’d say maybe 1 out of 20 of your posts are sane attempts at conveying logic with simple declarative sentences, sans hyperbole, hyperventilating, and hypersarcasm. But the rest are just childish nonsense meant to…wait for it…BAIT people. Hell, someone like shrinkers drives me batty sometimes with his (what I think is) backwards logic, but my God, at least he conveys it in (semi-)rational and adult tones, not in a manner that makes me picture him with his tongue sticking out going thbthbthbthbthbthbthb!!

  89. shiloh says:

    hmm, a MR baiting generalization. ;)Congrats!

  90. Mule Rider says:

    Look, shiloh, I have no desire to see which one of us can piss farther or longer, whose dick is longer or wider, etc.You can work yourself into a frenzy with all of that biting sarcasm for all I care, but I really have no need or desire to talk to you at all. So from henceforth, if you continue to babble on about me (while I remain silent in addressing you), I think that’s a sign of some kind of obsession you have with me, not the other way around.

  91. shiloh says:

    Mule, let the record show just about (((all))) of my posts re: you are throwing (((your own words))) back at ‘ya!But as w/everything, diminishing returns …take care

  92. Abraham Lincoln says:

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  93. shrinkers says:

    @Mule Rider wrote:Me: “And fanatics have killed doctors and lynched gay teenagers”MR:You know, I actually agree (for the most part) with the rest of your post after this line, but you (and others) always seem to trot these first two items out, especially about the killing of (abortion) doctors, as if they’re comparable in magnitude (although I’ll agree they’re comparable in egregiousness). We actually may be rather close on this.The act of lying airplanes into buildings is also about on a par in frequency with killing doctors or lynching teenagers — it ism in fact, somewhat less common. So we are agreed that these horrendous acts of terrorism are infrequent. Scale is a legitimate point. But noth kinds of acts are driven by the same underlying sense of hate. I think we are also agreed that whole populations should not be penalized or labeled because of the actions of insane fanatic individuals and tiny terrorist cults.I think the proper response to insane fanaticism is to a) tone down the rhetoric, and b) hold the insane fanatics responsible, as the individual criminals they are. I think you will agree that individual responsibility is an important and valuable concept. IMO, America should be encouraging the establishment of a mosque in lower Manhatten. Right next to a church, and a synagogue, and maybe a sweat lodge. Maybe even America’s first Wiccan temple. The best way to embarrass and fight against violent extremism is to display the ideals and vision upon which America was founded, and for which we stand.Mule, will you join me in a) condemning terrorism, and b) embracing diversity and liberty?

  94. shrinkers says:

    @GROGThe majority of Americans are skeptical of this portrayal of a peace loving Imam due to the fact that he wants to build it a ground zero. NYC is a big place. There are plenty of other less controversial places to build the mosque.Then “The majority of Americans” are uninformed. Please take a look at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_RaufNote, among other things, “Following the September 11 attacks, Rauf conducted training and speeches for the F.B.I. and U.S. State Department.”I am being serious, not at all trying to be combative. The main is pretty impressive.

  95. GROG says:

    mclever said:From my perspective, what GROG’s argument boils down to, is that the terrorists are winning. When he states (as the alleged mainstream opinion) that we should suppress freedom and promote government interference in religious matters, that’s a statement of fear–of terror.Now, see. No where did I ever promote government interference.

  96. DC Petterson says:

    shortchain wrote:”It was actually several dozen of the victims of 9/11/2001 that were Muslim.”True. I pulled an O’Reilly, and I wanted to see if anyone figured it out.It is true — it is undeniable — that hundreds of Muslims died on 9/11, just as I said. Not all of them were at the WTC. Some died peacefully of old age. All over the world, millions of people die every day of natural causes. Tens of thousands of them are Muslim.My statement was accurate — hundreds of Muslims died that day. In fact, many thousands did. Most of those deaths had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. In the same way, “Muslims” flew those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon. But most Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks. O’Reilly’s defenders want to claim his comments did not seek to condemn all of Islam for the attacks, even though that was the clear intent and purpose of his statement.I could pretend that I did not seek to give the impression that “hundreds” of Muslims died in the 9/11 attacks, even though that was the clear intent and purpose of my statement.What I said was, “One forgets that hundreds of innocent Muslims died on 9/11”. That is absolutely accurate, at least as accurate as O’Reilly’s statement. Yet both statements were false in their intentional implication.Thus ends today’s lesson.

  97. DC Petterson says:

    @GROGThey were prisoners of war, not civilians.According to the Bush Administration, they were not “prisoners of war.” Prisoners of war must be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Administration invented a new classification for them in order to avoid treating them humanely.

  98. DC Petterson says:

    GROG, I find I disagree with the rest of the post I just responded to.We were in the Middle East for a noble cause in the first place. We freed millions of Muslims from the murderous regime and raping of Sadam Husein.No, that is not why we Invaded Iraq. We were there to a) discover weapons of mass destruction that the UN inspectors insisted did not exist, and b) to find al Qaeda operatives who were not in Iraq at the time.9/11 changed the world. Abu Ghraib did not. Again, I disagree. For the first time ever, American soldiers engaged in blatant torture of prisoners, with the express permission and endorsement of the American President. That has helped to alter how the rest of the world views America, just as the 9/11 attacks have altered how America views Islam. And by the way, we must be certain to point out that the Iraq war was completely unrelated to 9/11, except in so far as both were unprovoked acts of terrorism.

  99. Mr. Universe says:

    shiloh, one could easily argue that your sole purpose in life is this. That’s all you ever do and for you to supposedly call somebody else on it is the biggest pot/kettle/black moment I think I’ve ever seen.Gonna have to go with Muley on this one, shiloh. You’ve been way over the top lately. Just because you know he’ll take the bait doesn’t mean you need to go fishing all the time. Just sayin’.

  100. Mr. Universe says:

    100!Isn’t it silly of me to do this at my own blog?

  101. WA7th says:

    Why do my comments keep disappearing after we reach 100? You fascist pigs are deleting them! Dammit, I have a right to freedom of speech on your private blog! I’ll track you down and peel you like a catfish with my engineer’s pocket tool!Oh wait. This is different software. Nevermind.

  102. GROG says:

    Then “The majority of Americans” are uninformed.You have a point. They did vote for Obama. πŸ˜‰

  103. Mainer says:

    Funny Grog I see the Know Nothing Party of the present to be a better example. But hey that is just me and I have as much or more chance of being right as you do. So if you get your guys in and a majority in any house what will you do if their actions paralyze the country or send it into another economic death spiral? A better question might be where it was ok to block all Democratic attempts to govern this country will you be equally good with the Dems blocking your desires? Or does a majority only count if it is a Republican majority? Think Lord of the Flies here GROG.

  104. Eusebio Dunkle says:

    The terrorists did win. They wanted a war, in name, and we gave it to them. However, we started the war decades ago with interventionist foreign policy. We deposed 20+ governments (including democracies) all over the world among numerous other illegal and immoral interventions. The only cogent argument supporting the war on terror or American foreign policy since WW2 requires the absolutist belief in The American Empire. The right wing seems to honestly believe in this position. The left wing only approves of some sanitized lesser version. Both require a corrupted moral philosophy. Neither position can be taken seriously until proponents admit their fundamental support for the American Empire at the cost of other peoples. It might make us bad guys, but at least it makes sense.

  105. Monotreme says:

    Bill O’Reilly claims another victim.http://n.pr/cznR8S

  106. mclever says:

    I think what’s amazing to me (about Bill O’Reilly’s latest victim) are the comments on the allegedly “left wing” NPR site that seem to agree with the “Muslims attacked us” meme.Jesus wept.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s