Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
Read the original:
Posted by
on March 11, 2011. Filed under News, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
Go here to read the rest:
Posted by
on March 11, 2011. Filed under News, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
See original here:
Posted by
on March 11, 2011. Filed under News, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
See the rest here:
Posted by
on March 11, 2011. Filed under News, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
Read more from the original source:
