Bill sets his viewers straight.
In his talking points from July 10th, Bill O’Reilly says he is taking a hard look at the media for what he calls “sanitizing the London terror attack or terrorism in general.” It appears that Bill was particularly troubled by the New York Times referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a “Jordanian fighter.”
The Times, instead of ignoring Bill’s rants, actually sent a letter to Bill explaining to him that they quite often refer to Zarqawi as a terrorist, they described his actions and they showed his links to Usama Bin Laden. Here you can find the complete letter sent to O’Reilly by the NYT.
Of course Bill realizes now that he misrepresented the NYT and publicly apologizes to make such a stupid point in public... oh, sorry, this sentence slipped in from an alternate universe where Evil Hrun also blogs sporadically. No, of course Bill O’Reilly, like the upstanding principled man that he is states: “Well, I appreciate your letter, Mr. Keller, but I stand by my point. Zarqawi is not a Jordanian fighter. That is inaccurate. Serial killers are not fighters, sir, with all due respect.”
Hmmm, is that correct? Are serial killers not fighters? Or, more specifically, is Zarqawi not a Jordanian fighter? Well, I can’t confirm whether Zarqawi is Jordanian or not. However, it appears that Bill does not have a problem with the nationality of this person. So, it must be the word “fighter” that bugs Mr. O’Reilly. Here’s what I usually do in these cases, I look up the definition of the word “fighter”. I come up with: “One who fights, such as a soldier or boxer.” So, of course I look up the word “fight”: “To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.”
So, a fighter is a person who attempts to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons. It appears to me that terrorists fall full well into this category. Zarqawi appears not to randomly kill people to satisfy an inner compulsion. Judging by public statements made by him or affiliated groups Zarqawi is using terrorism specifically to achieve a political goal in Iraq: to derail the attempts of the US and its allies to install a Democratic government. So, the adversary of Zarqawi are the US and its allies (including the Iraqi security forces), and to me it is abvious that he is trying to gain power over these people by inflicting harm on US soldiers, Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians. But, I am glad that Bill stands by his point... even though he is making a fool of himself.