We Decide, You Shut Up

[Ninja-Scientist]

Hey folks. Sorry to do this to you all, but I promised some people that I would copy this interview/article and paste it here for them to read. It's really interesting, so I advise you all to read it. ^_^

____________________

[interview]

WE DECIDE, YOU SHUT UP

From a February 4 interview on The O'Reilly Factor, a Fox News program. Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on Setember 11, reported that after the interview, O'Reilly said to him, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces." This episode was never aired.

Bill O'Reilly: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out that an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an antiwar advertisement that accuesed the U.S.A. itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11...we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage--even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book Another World Is Possible.
I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed.

Jeremy Glick: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'Reilly: Who signed the advertisement?

Glick: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 familes, was also involved.

O'Reilly: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

Glick:...As an individual.

O'Reilly: Yes as---with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

Glick: I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. Our current president inherited a political legacy from his father that's responsible for training militarily, and economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the murder of my father and countless thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising---

O'Reilly: All right. Now let me stop you here. So---

Glick:---that I would come back and want to support---

O'Reilly: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

Glick:---escalating---

O'Reilly: You are mouthing a far-left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

Glick: It's marginal---right.

O'Reilly: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're---you see, even---I'm sure you beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

Glick: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'Reilly: Maybe he did, but---

Glick: I also didn't think that Bush---

O'Reilly:---I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation, as you are.

Glick: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'Reilly: Yes, you are. You signed---

Glick: What I'm saying is---

O'Reilly:---this, and that absolutely said that.

Glick:---is that six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter Administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'Reilly: All right. I don't want to---

Glick: Maybe---

O'Reilly: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

Glick: Well, whiy not? This is about world politics.

O'Reilly: Because number one, I don't really care what you think.

Glick: Well, okay.

O'Reilly: You're---I want to---

Glick: But you do care because you---

O'Reilly: No, no. Look---

Glick: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11---

O'Reilly: Here's why I care.

Glick:---to rationalize---

O'Reilly: Here's why I care---

Glick: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'Reilly: Okay. That's a bunch---

Glick: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'Reilly: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission---I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

Glick: Okay.

O'Reilly: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

Glick: Well, you're not representing me.

O'Reilly: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

Glick: Why?

O'Reilly: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

Glick: Okay.

O'Reilly: Here's the record. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it. Okay?

Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan?

O'Reilly: Who killed your father!

Glick: The people in Afghanistan---

O'Reilly: Who killed your father.

Glick:---did not kill my father.

O'Reilly: Sure they did. The Al Qaeda people were trained there.

Glick: The Al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

Glick: So what about George Bush---

O'Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

Glick:---Senior, as director of the CIA.

O'Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand mujahedeen who were---

O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

Glick: Well, I hope she is.

O'Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you---That's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

Glick: Okay.

O'Reilly: In respect for your father---

Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.

Glick: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'Reilly: As respect---as respect---in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians---

Glick: By radical extremeist who were trained by this government---

O'Reilly: Out of respect for him---

Glick:---not the people of America.

O'Reilly:---I'm not going to---

Glick:---the people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'Reilly: Cut his mike. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for ou father.

Glick: That means we're done?

O'Reilly: We're done.

[JMHX]

I'm going to say one thing and then end it, becuase I do not view Bill O'Reilly as someone who is worthy of any debate at all. He's nothing but a muckraker who cuts his interviews with certain people (Al Franken) and edits them until they turn out in his favor. Bill O'Reilly should never be taken seriously. Never.

[swayside]

and glick should be?

[JMHX]

At 7/2/03 02:58 AM, swayside wrote: and glick should be?

Birds of a feather.

[Ninja-Scientist]

At 7/2/03 02:58 AM, swayside wrote: and glick should be?

Um. It's not just Glick who said this. It should be common knowledge that the US (and Bush Sr. in particular, when he was head of the CIA during his reign) greatly funded and trained the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (with millions of millions of dollars and weapons). In fact, the US was one of the ones who put them in power in the first place (the US was one of the three main countries that did this).

Ironically, the reason that the Taliban was put into power was to be more of a pro-american leadership versus the Zuraki government in Afghanistan at that time (however, this changed once the US abandoned the Taliban after their dirty work was done and then went to screw with Palestine, angering them further).

This was done because of the Bush Sr. administration's desire for better trade---particularly oil trade, might I add----in that area. In fact, the main purpose for this was to get a group that would be open to negotiations for an oil pipeline that would run through Afghanistan into Central Asian oil (which was controlled by Russia at that time).

In fact, might I add, federal documents have already shown that Bush Jr. himself put a temporary halt to the FBI investigations surrounding the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to attempt to continue negotiations for this same pipeline. At the same time, he was giving his famous "we will not negotiate with terrorists" speech. lol. Also, might I add, if he didn't temporarily hald the FBI invenstigations, Bin Laden might not have gotten away.
------------------------
This is all fact. The US put the Taliban in power, funded them, trained them, etc. etc. And for what? For better trade?

What Glick is trying to say is that it was partially America's fault for funding our own terrorists simply for reasons surrounding trade, particularly the oil trade. And I agree, America should be more isolationistic and not fund dangerous extremist groups to do our dirty work for us (especially for such rediculous reasons). Ever.

The results are obviously not good (just look at what we did to Iraq and Iran in the Iranian Conflict, and look at Iraq now. They wouldn't even have had WMD or Biological Weapons if it wasn't for us).

If the US didn't fund and support the Taliban, then the attack on 9/11 would not have happened in the first place, and Glick's father would not have had to die just so the US could get better trade with Afghanistan for a short time.

In any case. Like I said, all that Glick said was fact. O'Reilly was simply just denying it all and saying that the Afghan people were at fault for the Taliban's rise to power (which they weren't, most of them hate the Taliban, too). He was trying to deny it all simply because it was unflattering to America's image. However, since all of it was true, he couldn't defend his points well and would up looking like an idiot. Hence, his little freak out session there. lol.
-----------------
In any case. I wouldn't trust my information coming from someone who thinks that Al Queda is made up of Afghan people and then trying to broadcast that to the public. Everyone should know by now that Al Queda is actually made up by very few Afghan people. Mostly, they wer Libenese, Palestinian, Egyptian, etc.

In any case, that's how the ball bounces. It just shows you how sleezy Fox is willing to get for ratings......still.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

That was one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I'd pay so much to get the screen shot of Bill O'Reilly with smoke shooting out of his big fat red face.

I'm surprised that That Glick guy was able to compose himself logically, aggresively, and in a humble manner considering that he's obviously not a Television personality, and O'reilly basically digged him by using the death of his father to try to shame him.

Glick's ideas are a bit short sighted, and half-truths, but at least he wasn't the blustering worthless hunk of rump roast O'reilly is.

[Ted-Easton]

Everyone else has known the information behind this interview all along, haven't they? The US supporting and training these people?
I knew, and I talked about it a bit, but I'm not sure if this is coming to you all as a revelation or just a reiteration of fact.

[Nirvana13666]

Even though this kid’s father died as a direct result of terrorism he stays focused and realizes that his own country could not have only prevented the attack that took his father’s life but obviously is connected to it in one way or another. People get mad at him cause he is he has not allowed the rage brought on by his loss to blind his judgment. The facts are out there people make up your own minds.

Patriotism is about loving your country for what it is not for what it wants to be recognized as.

[Ted-Easton]

At 7/2/03 11:27 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: People get mad at him cause he is he has not allowed the rage brought on by his loss to blind his judgment.

Very good point, Nirv. My thoughts exactly.

[mrpopenfresh]

True nirv, true. People are mad at him because he dosent go with the general view of what happenned, and to top it all off, hes one of the victim! He isnt narrow minded; he adopted another point of view, he is unbiased. Id never though id see a victim think like that, I know that if my lifee was affected like that, I would just go with the masses blindingly following bent truths.

Allah Bless Fox News!

[nitroxide]

At 7/2/03 11:27 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

Patriotism is about loving your country for what it is not for what it wants to be recognized as.

What about if you renounce everything it is at the present moment but have notion about a fortuitous future.I don't wear any flags pins or hang flags outside car windows or home windows, i never shed a tear for 9/11 victims although i would have if i actually had lost someone in the attack. I cant see why,hard core aggressive patriots need to back up and cling to any judgement the mass or for that matter their government makes...this shouldn't impair your judgment.I sympathize for the Afghan people and Americas counteraction...its true when he says"Extremist murdered him...not the Afghan people.Why does America develop such hate for a country once they oppose or dispute against them in ANY way(France).America stands for fabricated truths ,its gives of a illusive image a impure,shameful, and egotistical aura...But i dream of what i could be.

[nitroxide]

At 7/2/03 01:57 PM, nailbomb wrote: Allah Bless Fox News!

On that note,Nailbomb have you seen...The George Bush Show!

[Commander-K25]

Remember that O'Reilly does not equal Fox News.

[Shangui]

America built the gun, loaded it and gived it to Al-Quaeda. All Al-Quaeda had to do was to pull the trigger.

Sadly, America has learned nothing from its mistake, seeing how most of the people and the governement itself dont want to ear the truth, even less accept it. We may be witnessing another of these situation in Iraq right now and with all of Bush's internationnal policies. I wouldnt be surprised if America gets attacked again in the decade to come.

To tell the truth I almost laughed when I heard about 9/11. America just got back what it did to so many nations. I had time to think since then, and I realize that violence only bring more violence, and I think America should be "The bigger man".

[JMHX]

At 7/2/03 08:21 PM, Shangui wrote: America built the gun, loaded it and gived it to Al-Quaeda. All Al-Quaeda had to do was to pull the trigger.

Exactly. It's easy to blame the triggerman, but it takes a sort of justice that America hasn't found yet to trace it back to who set the course into action.

At 7/2/03 07:49 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Remember that O'Reilly does not equal Fox News.

Please elaborate further.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/2/03 11:46 PM, nailbomb wrote: Please elaborate further.

This incident with O'Reilly is often brought up, but remember that this is only one show on an entire network. Taking an opinion about O'Reilly's show and then extrapolating it outward to cover the entire network would be flawed logic. That's like saying, because ABC sometimes shows sports, then ABC is a sports oriented channel.

Ok, but if the History Channel has shows about history with historical viewpoints, does that not make it a channel about history?

[Lyddiechu]

don't be bashin on tha history channel!!! i love that thing!

[Vicious-WTFN]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that never happened. All of this part of a interview micheal moore made in retaliation to bill o'rielly when he started assaulting his movie.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/3/03 12:07 AM, nailbomb wrote: Ok, but if the History Channel has shows about history with historical viewpoints, does that not make it a channel about history?

So you're saying that Fox News is Bill O'Reilly 24 hrs. a day?

[Ninja-Scientist]

Well, in pure honesty, Fox is notorious in the media eye for being pretty right wing (they're made fun of it all the time, especially on Comedy Central ^_-). In fact, the very idea that they would give a guy like O'Reilly (Mr. Fire-and-Brim-Stones. lol.) his own show shows fairly clearly where they stand politically (overall, of course).

However, I simply don't like Fox because their news sucks (all they care about is sleezy ratings and they go to almost any length to get there), and because their sleezy in their types of programming [they're the ones that got the whole "reality series" thing going big for example---scare tactics (which is the sleeziest of all), who wants to marry a multi-millionare, joe billionare, mr. personality, "marry this person," "marry that person," american idol, american idol juniors (the second sleeziest one), etc. etc. etc. just because they're cheap to make.]. Not a place I would advice getting my real news from.

All in all, Fox News is just sleezy in general. They feed off of the tragity and pain of others for the sake of ratings (the most out of all tv stations), they instill fear in people for the sake of ratings (by blowing things out of proportion commonly), etc. etc, and overall, they just never seem to have their priorities straight.

And worst of all, since they are one of the biggest stations, their actions influence the actions of the other stations.

At 7/3/03 01:23 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

::

So you're saying that Fox News is Bill O'Reilly 24 hrs. a day?

Not really, I'm saying that if a TV station finances, supports and broadcasts such an extreme-rightist show like the O'Reily Factor it must be because it shares the same viewpoints. I doubt that those who own Fox and Fox News or at least decide what's going to air on those shows are Democrats who support Bill O'Reily.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/3/03 01:36 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Well, in pure honesty, Fox is notorious in the media eye for being pretty right wing

And network news is notoriously left wing.

In fact, the very idea that they would give a guy like O'Reilly (Mr. Fire-and-Brim-Stones. lol.) his own show shows fairly clearly where they stand politically (overall, of course).

Thay also air Alan Colmes, a staunch leftist.

They feed off of the tragity and pain of others for the sake of ratings....

If you haven't noticed, ALL news stations do that.

[Ninja-Scientist]

At 7/3/03 01:41 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/3/03 01:36 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Well, in pure honesty, Fox is notorious in the media eye for being pretty right wing

And network news is notoriously left wing.

Actually, although you can be "left wing" on tv news, it's pretty hard to be "notoriously" left wing.

Broadcasting news is supposed to be more of a left-wing sport anyway (muckracking is supposed to be more liberal, considering that it usually targets big businesses and is done "for the sake of the common man," etc.). However, when up and coming writers, etc, enter the tv news machine where they focus more on flashy gimics and on getting ratings then on actual news or "bringing the word to the people" many of them wind up getting their dreams crushed.

That's why the only "Pulitzer Prize" muckrakers didn't earn their awards from working on tv. In fact, advertisement agencies florish in the tv news world, while the actual muckrackers have a harder time.

What I'm saying is, when you start focusing on gimics and ratings more so than news, the ability of the news stations to be "left-wing" drops. I'm not saying, of course, that they can't be left-wing. But it is much easier for them to be right-wing in the vicious news business than to be left-wing. Especially considering that, like I've said, many of them are often forced to rely on Fox as a "role model" in the face of depleting ratings. Fox runs the heard (mainly because they are the sleeziest and know how to get ratings big time).

In fact, the very idea that they would give a guy like O'Reilly (Mr. Fire-and-Brim-Stones. lol.) his own show shows fairly clearly where they stand politically (overall, of course).

Thay also air Alan Colmes, a staunch leftist.

Does he have his own show called the Alan Colmes show? But, honestly, I'm wondering.

They feed off of the tragity and pain of others for the sake of ratings....

If you haven't noticed, ALL news stations do that.

Hmmm. Perhaps that's why I said they do it the most. Not they're the only ones who do it.

[JMHX]

A little sub-question here to stir things up a bit -- if you owned your own news station, would you hire Bill O'Reilly? I mean...sure, he's trash, but he's been on the tops of the ratings since he's been put on. The guy's a fool, and some of the things he says are so incredibly opinion-and-not-fact that it just makes you laugh. Eh.

[TheShrike]

The sad fact is that Bill echoes Fox's execs. You know? The guys who hired him?

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/3/03 10:45 AM, TheShrike wrote: The sad fact is that Bill echoes Fox's execs. You know? The guys who hired him?

Not really. Fox is an entertainment channel. Even their news is more entertainment than information.

Fox Execs make decisions based on what makes them money, not what their political views are.

[Ninja-Scientist]

At 7/3/03 10:53 AM, AnarchyPengoon wrote:

Not really. Fox is an entertainment channel. Even their news is more entertainment than information.

Fox Execs make decisions based on what makes them money, not what their political views are.

I agree with that entertainment portion. However, you must also agree that for them to even consider hiring a guy like O'Reilly, or I should say, giving him his own show @_o' must mean that the majority of the Fox Execs agreed with much of his opinions. If they didn't, why would they put on a guy who they'd think would make the station look bad through his sometimes outragous opinions?

I mean, you wouldn't put a guy on your show if you thought he was a nutcase or disagreed with his sometimes extreme logic. Otherwise, you'd be risking the fact that viewers would find his logic as representing your station.

All in all, we can safely say that O'Reilly represents a good part of where the Fox system stands politically. Afterall, if he didn't, they wouldn't want that man to represent them at all.

In fact, one station fired one of their authors for demonstrating in an anti-war rally because it was "bad publicity" for the station. @_o' It was a while back that I read this, so I don't remember if it was Fox. But it just goes to show you how biased stations can get. Sheesh.

It also shows you to what lengths Execs will go to to "protect" their image when they feel that one of their worker's actions represent them to the public in a way they don't wish to be. Fox having O'Reilly shows that they at least don't mind being represented by him, revealing to at least some extent where they stand politically. ^_^