I'm surprised Rudy got away with this part of his speech

[Spurminator]

When I heard it live, I thought for sure we'd be hearing about it for days.


For — for four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words “Islamic terrorism.”

I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please tell me, who are they insulting if they say “Islamic terrorism”? They are insulting terrorists.


I usually try to find the most likely explanation for poorly phrased statements that sound worse than they are probably meant, but I'm struggling on this one. Any ideas?

[2centsworth]

When I heard it live, I thought for sure we'd be hearing about it for days.




I usually try to find the most likely explanation for poorly phrased statements that sound worse than they are probably meant, but I'm struggling on this one. Any ideas?

he meant you wouldn't be offending muslims to say both islam and terrorist together, so he has no idea why dems refused to say the word islamic terrorist. He was just trying to say dems avoid the discussion of terrorism. probably poorly phrased, but the point was understood by most.

[ChumpDumper]

Did the Democrats completely avoid the subject of terrorism the entire convention?

[Spurminator]

I honestly wonder if it was understood by most... It disturbs me to think that the thousands of people uproariously cheering after that statement interpreted it the same way I did. So hopefully I'm in the minority.

Regardless of the phrasing, and without promoting political correctness or censorship, is the Democrats' hesitation to specify the religion of the terrorists really an offense worthy of calling out in a Convention speech? Does Rudy think we need to be reminded more often that the attackers on 9/11 were from a radical Islamic group? Whatever his point was, it still seemed to appeal to fear and intolerance of Muslims.

We're not fighting Islam, we're fighting terrorism. But given that our alledged "War on Islam" is such a recruiting tool for the terrorist groups we are fighting, it's a little frustrating to see one of our most well-known political figures use such a poor choice of words and arguments on National Television in front of thousands of cheering delegates.

[FromWayDowntown]

Would Rudy have us not worried about other forms of terrorism? I'm fairly certain that the words "terrorists" and "terrorism" were used in Denver -- is there some reason to confine the concern to those who are Islamic?

[Findog]

I don't think Guiliani's speech was helpful to McCain's cause. It was a red meat speech that went over very well inside the hall, but that's about it.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

He was just throwing more nouns and verbs around.

[td4mvp21]

He was just throwing more nouns and verbs around.

:lol My friend posted this on his facebook: "Giuliani=noun+verb+9/11"

[jochhejaam]

Given the overall tenor of his speech, I thought Guiliani was straight out mocking Obama, reinforcing the Republicans contention that he would be a weak leader. IMHO, It's a real stretch to view it as an insult to Islam.

[boutons_]

the Repugs spew so many lies, distort and misrepresent the world and their oppoenents, it's a silly fool's game to try to parse their words.

McSame said he was against partison rancor, he was going to run a civil campaign, but, surprise, he lied. McSame old shit from McSame and his team.

[Spurminator]

Given the overall tenor of his speech, I thought Guiliani was straight out mocking Obama, reinforcing the Republicans contention that he would be a weak leader. IMHO, It's a real stretch to view it as an insult to Islam.

What exactly was he mocking in the above statement?

[jochhejaam]

What exactly was he mocking in the above statement?

The --- Democrats --- (Obama's) --- timidity --- or --- reluctance --- to vocalize --- their --- opposition --- to --- terrorism.




Specifically Islamic terrorism

[2centsworth]

Would Rudy have us not worried about other forms of terrorism? I'm fairly certain that the words "terrorists" and "terrorism" were used in Denver -- is there some reason to confine the concern to those who are Islamic?

that's the PC rudy was referring to.

[FromWayDowntown]

that's the PC rudy was referring to.

It's not PC to worry about terrorism in general -- it's pragmatic. I don't give a damn about the affiliation of the terrorsists who might strike us; I'm more worried about our government using the legal means available to it to prevent those attacks from occurring, regardless of who might be doing the attacking.

It seems to me that a concern for terrorism shouldn't be confined to a concern for Islamic terrorism; and it seems to me as well that there's a needless generalization that arises when the word terrorism is always preceded by the word Islamic.

[Kobe24Forever]

it's obvious Rudy G didn't have a speech coach to bail him out, i heard his speech, a 5 year old could make a better speech him.

[boutons_]

Asshole Giuliani trash talking HUSSEIN for not preceding terrorist with Islamic illustrates the shitty level the Repugs have been reduced to. It's a distraction, pure bullshit distraction, like the Palin distraction.

What we didn't hear from the Repugs was anything about the Repug cratering economy, Repug Iraq, Repug Afghanistan, Repug financial meltdown, Repug housing/credit crisis, the Repug deregulation nightmares.

The Repugs knows they can't run on issues or the disastrous Repug record in power since 2001, so it's all smear-and-fear trash talking, and personalities, and ad hominem slime.

[2centsworth]

It's not PC to worry about terrorism in general -- it's pragmatic. I don't give a damn about the affiliation of the terrorsists who might strike us; I'm more worried about our government using the legal means available to it to prevent those attacks from occurring, regardless of who might be doing the attacking.

It seems to me that a concern for terrorism shouldn't be confined to a concern for Islamic terrorism; and it seems to me as well that there's a needless generalization that arises when the word terrorism is always preceded by the word Islamic.

just in case you don't know, the people who flew the planes in to the WTC were islamic terrorist. but heaven forbid I use that term.

[Bartleby]

Just in case you don't know, the person who orchestrated that attack is STILL on the loose 7 years later, but heaven forbid anybody mention his name at the RNC.

[boutons_]

"heaven forbid I use that term"

nobody's forbidding anybody, and I'm sure heaven doesn't give shit.

Why not include the dear Bush family friends: "Saudi Arabian Islamic Terrorists" ?

[FromWayDowntown]

What difference does their religion make? It's what drives them sure, but it's not as if all terrorists are Islamic -- and it's not as if all Islamic people are terrorists. Pointing to their religion seems little more than gratuitous unless we're going to choose to only concern ourselves with Islamic terrorists; or unless we're going to make this into a war of religion. But I would think that neither would be a particularly useful way to prosecute the current war -- though maybe that's just me.

Is it really not enough to be concerned with fighting terrorism?

[FromWayDowntown]

Somehow, I supsect that if Barack Hussein Obama's name was Joseph Patrick Jefferson, nobody would give a damn about whether the Democrats gratutiously used Islamic.

[PixelPusher]

"heaven forbid I use that term"

nobody's forbidding anybody, and I'm sure heaven doesn't give shit.

Why not include the dear Bush family friends: "Saudi Arabian Islamic Terrorists" ?

I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please tell me, who are they insulting if they say “Saudi Arabian terrorism”? They are insulting terrorists. [/RudyG]

[Mr. Peabody]

I guess Timothy McVeigh was less dangerous because he was an agnostic terrorist....

[whottt]

I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please tell me, who are they insulting if they say “Saudi Arabian terrorism”? They are insulting terrorists. [/RudyG]


Proof you weren't following politicis in 2001.

[PixelPusher]

Proof you weren't following politicis in 2001.

I recalled a sober, "let's all calm down about this" tone from the Bush Administration regarding our Saudi "Allies". But, if you have links to Ari Fleischer or Fox News pundits busting out with the War on Saudi Arabian Terrorisim talking point, by all means share.

[ChumpDumper]

Those guys were all Iraqis.

[angel_luv]

To me it was unnecessary and thoughtless to pair Islamic with terrorists. There are all sorts of terrorists, from all sorts of backgrounds that this country need concern itself with.

The convention was not the platform to be calling out just one sect of terrorists.
It didn't deter any one who is guilty and could have caused avoidable offense to listeners with innocent intent.

[Mr. Peabody]

Those guys were all Iraqis.

Nice.

:lol

[Anti.Hero]

Who cares. Anything that attacks PC is good in my book.

[whottt]

:lmao
Were any of you guys folliwing politics prior to 2001?


Guiliani kicked Nobel Peace Prize Winner :lmao Yasir Arafat out of the Lincoln Center when he was scheduled to speak before the UN. This was long before September 11th. Kicked his fucking thug murderous pedophillic extortionist ass out onto the fucking streets like a bum. And he told him he was terrorist mudering scum as he did it.


After September 11th a Saudi Prince was going to make a donation of 10 million dollars to the 911 Relief Fund...Rudy was extremely happy to accept that donation from the man...until the man wanted to qualify that donation with a statement that perhaps terrorism would stop if the US would stop supporting Israel.

Rudy then told that Prince to stick that 10 million dollars up his ass.




The fact that you guys are worried about who might have been offended is exactly the point he was making, and he knew exactly what he was saying. And if you are waiting for an apology or clarification...you're going to be waiting for a while.



Bascially...if you in anyway think that Islamic terrorist methods are excused or justified..er rationalized. Rudy doesn't want to you to like him...and he wants you to be offended, and this includes Muslims.


Rudy is not interested in coming to a compromise on terrorism.

And he most definitely is not talking about any other kind of terrorism other than Islamic Terrorism.

[whottt]

Saddam was a good man


You're exactly who he wanted to offend with that statement.

[boutons_]

"you guys are worried about who might have been offended"

I'm not, who is?

"Rudy is not interested in coming to a compromise on terrorism."

BFD, who IS interested?

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't want to pursue the real terrorists because I heart Osama.You're the one who said Iraq was a bad war.

[ChumpDumper]

And no, I wasn't offended by Rudy's remarks. His anger has always been at least slightly misdirected, making him prone to stupidity, just like whottt.

[whottt]

Sure you discuss peace, but you do it with like, 10,000 nuclear missles aimed at their cities.

[ChumpDumper]

Whose cities?

Al Qaeda's?

[whottt]

And no, I wasn't offended by Rudy's remarks. His anger has always been at least slightly misdirected, making him prone to stupidity, just like whottt.

No..ignorance is giving Yasir Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize as some of kind of reward for not murdering people, when he is a brutal murderer...how many people did Yasir have suicide bombed after he got that award?


Yeah that worked real well...

Appeasement never works.

[whottt]

Whose cities?

Al Qaeda's?

Iran's....at the minimum.

Maybe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well.


I think he fantacizes about it...with pantyhose and heels on.



He doesn't back down to intimidation...that's what you guys need to understand about him....and that scares the hell out of those that intimidate.

[ChumpDumper]

US foreign policy is written by the Nobel committee.

[ChumpDumper]

Iran's....at the minimum.

Maybe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well.Since all those governments attacked us on 9/11....more misdirection....



He doesn't back down to intimidation...that's what you guys need to understand about him....and that scares the hell out of those that intimidate.He lost early in the primary season and has no power, that's what you need to understand about him.

[whottt]

I know exactly what they were thinking when they gave Arafat that award...


This guy is a brutal murderer, but now we are giving him and his thugs billions of dollars per year, so let's see if we can give him this award as a reward and change him into some kind of agent of peace, let's show him that peace is greater that lawlessness..


And Arafat laughed all the way to the bank at the idiots who thought he wanted anything other than money and power and to wipe Israel off the map, or that they could ever change him from what he was.

This is why Rudy, no matter how much freak he may be...is smarter than you guys, it's why he took down the mob, and it's why you guys never would have.


Fact.

[whottt]

Since all those governments attacked us on 9/11....more misdirection....


He lost early in the primary season and has no power, that's what you need to understand about him.



He also didn't take us into Iraq...and that's what you need to understand about him...and this thread...

Strawman.

[remingtonbo2001]

Yep....

[ChumpDumper]

He also didn't take us into Iraq...and that's what you need to understand about him...and this thread...

Strawman.So he was against the invasion of Iraq?

And you are the one who made another strawman by bringing up countries instead of Al Qaeda -- you remember them?

[Mr. Peabody]

So he was against the invasion of Iraq?

No he was for the invasion, but he did doubt our troops and The Surge. I guess Giuliani doesn't have faith in the troops or Patraeus....


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/giuliani.lkl/index.html
Giuliani 'not confident' war will turn around
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former New York mayor and 2008 presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani said Wednesday he is not sure the tide will turn in the war in Iraq, as President Bush has said.

"I'm not confident it's all going to turn around," Giuliani told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war.

[jochhejaam]

To me it was unnecessary and thoughtless to pair Islamic with terrorists.
Is there another way to describe terrorists that are Islamic? <serious question>








The convention was not the platform to be calling out just one sect of terrorists. It didn't deter any one who is guilty and could have caused avoidable offense to listeners with innocent intent.
I can't find the links (too busy to spend a lot of time looking), but there are countless stories of Islamic terrorists <pardon my French> that have turned over a new leaf, those IMO are the ones that deserve an apology.

[whottt]

Bottomline...if Guiliani had been elected President Usama Bin Laden would be caught now.

And I know the Bush Admin has can't caught him either.

The problem is that the only alternative the Democrats offered was John Kerry, and if he was elected, we'd still be waiting on the UN, France and Germany to let us know when it's ok to defend ourselves.


There would be a couple milliion dead muslims, from the self centered and ignorant immediate pullout, that liberals would stick their heads in the sand and predict don't exist and aren't our fault, like they do with Vietnam...and somehow, silly me, I find that more offensive that Guiliani's comments.


And now we got Obama...who incidentally spent most of Thursday Night stammering and backing down to Bill O'Reilly.


Don't act like the Democrats are giving us worthwhile foreign policy candidates....you're giving us International asskissers, who only go after Republicans, and that's why you guys keep losing Presidential elections.


Fact.

[FromWayDowntown]

The only terrorists in the world are Islamic terrorists!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Bottomline...if Guiliani had been elected President Usama Bin Laden would be caught now.I don't believe he even ran last time, so this is a pretty stupid claim.


Fact.You are really making up a bunch of shit lately. it's disappointing.

Fact.

[Mr. Peabody]

Bottomline...if Guiliani had been elected President Usama Bin Laden would be caught now.



If Giuliani and McCain know how to catch Bin Laden, why haven't they shared that information with the Bush administration? Do they want to catch Bin Laden more than Bush does?

[whottt]

And you are the one who made another strawman by bringing up countries instead of Al Qaeda -- you remember them?


And your're naive if you don't think it's countries that are the ultimate sponsors of terrorism.

[ChumpDumper]

And your're naive if you don't think it's countries that are the ultimate sponsors of terrorism.Which countries? You need to tell the Bush administration right now!

Whottt is going to get bin Laden!

[whottt]

I don't believe he even ran last time, so this is a pretty stupid claim.

No...what's stupid is you thinking I was sayng he ran for election last time. I didn't say he ran for election. I said if he'd been elected, and I didn't specidy a year either...there's a difference there, and if you don't see it, the stupidity is on your part..not mine.

I didn't say he ran in 2004 or last time, so why would you say my original statement is a claim that he did?





You are really making up a bunch of shit lately. it's disappointing.

Fact.


You just said I made a claim that Guiliani ran for President in 2004 last time, when I never did so...I consider that more disappointing.

[whottt]

So he was against the invasion of Iraq?

Oh he'd have definitely been in favor of it at some point...not a doubt about it.

But he'd have definitely gone aftter Usama first.


And whether he was against or for the Invasion of Iraq is a moot point since he had no say in the matter.





And you are the one who made another strawman by bringing up countries instead of Al Qaeda -- you remember them?


Yeah...because the ultimate cause, and funders of terrorism, are countries.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh he'd have definitely been in favor of it at some point...not a doubt about it.

But he'd have definitely gone aftter Usama first.


And whether he was against or for the Invasion of Iraq is a moot point since he had no say in the matter. As is any argument that you make about his getting UBL by now had he been president.


Fact.




Yeah...because the ultimate cause, and funders of terrorism, are countries.Why are you holding back all this valuable information from the US government? Whottt is going to get bin Laden!

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh he'd have definitely been in favor of it at some point...not a doubt about it.

But he'd have definitely gone aftter Usama first.


Would McCain have gone after Bin Laden first?

One month after the 9/11 attacks, McCain was already beating the war drum for Iraq. He was even going so far as to say that the anthrax turning up in Washington was from Iraq.

tlAUj4s6sT0


LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that’s when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

[2centsworth]

The only terrorists in the world are Islamic terrorists!!!!!

Please list them.

[ChumpDumper]

Please list them.:lol are you serious?

[whottt]

Would McCain have gone after Bin Laden first?

One month after the 9/11 attacks, McCain was already beating the war drum for Iraq. He was even going so far as to say that the anthrax turning up in Washington was from Iraq.

tlAUj4s6sT0


Can you not read your own quotes?


Do I again need to point out that every one was saying that at that time? And before?


Do you need me to point Hillary and Bill Clinton saying the exact same thing?


And John Kerry...and Al Gore, and John Edwards.


Dude...you are incapable of seeing anything from a different side...thus your view of realitity is a distorted one.

You only see the bad in Republicans...I see the bad in both. The Democrats are worse...

[wut]

This is a tough subject, because honestly...I don't know anything about Islam other than the followers of the religion follow their religious texts and leaders TOO literally, to the point that creates violence/hate in the world. The religion didn't evolve with time..and throughout time as man started to understand the world, man started to understand that the only true way for peace on earth is through free trade of material goods; which is the opposite of what religious texts teach. Therein lies the problem.

Outside of all of this complicated set of issues, we remain TIED to foreign oil, which lead us to the middle east, Africa and elsewhere to protect the flow of oil to keep our nation running forward. You have to wonder if Arabs would hate us at all (outside of our relationship with Israel), if it weren't for our need to secure our flow of oil.

But I digress, to the OP, the omission of the word Radical was a big mistake, imo. It's extremism in ANY form that creates hatred in our world. We need to fight extremism, not religion.

[whottt]

Someday...you guys will figure out that if you'd given us anything other than an immediate pullout UN Asskisser candidate in 2004, you'd have won that election.


So who truly is the stupid one....

Why is it so fucking hard to figure out that putting on the brakes or turning is a better way of stopping an accident than throwing the car into reverse?






PS: Because my view of reality isn't polarized...I know exactly what Rudy Guiliani is...and no, I don't think it's all good at all, in fact some of it is flat out terrifying, but there is no doubt this dude loves this country, and it's also something that will be incredibly effective against terrorism, and shithead leaders. And those negatives are nothing that can't be controlled by a Democratic Congress.



For instance...I don't think Obama is a pussy as he comes off as being somtimes. He's just trying to be nice and wants to be liked, when push comes to shove he will defend himself...the problem with a leader like that as opposed to Guilani...Guilani is the guy no one is going to test.

[Mr. Peabody]

Can you not read your own quotes?

Do I again need to point out that every one was saying that at that time? And before?

Do you need me to point Hillary and Bill Clinton saying the exact same thing?

And John Kerry...and Al Gore, and John Edwards.


Exactly. So how can you say that Rudy or anyone else would have taken a different path or had a different result?

[2centsworth]

:lol are you serious?
It's a tough question
, but im not interested in a troll opinion. Hence, the question wasn't directed at you.

[ChumpDumper]

It's a tough question
, but im not interested in a troll opinion. Hence, the question wasn't directed at you.It's not a tough question at all, hence my incredulity at your asking it.

[whottt]

Exactly. So how can you say that Rudy or anyone else would have taken a different path or had a different result?


they aren't as stupid as Bush, they know when they are being manipulated. You can't manipulate guys like McCain or Guiliani...or Bill Clinton for that matter, they are too smart for that. Bush is easy to manipulate...he's got a very simplistic world and America view. This does not mean he's not stubborn, because he is....

Sad that it was more rooted in reality than the 2004 Democratic Ticket and their leadership for the past 4 years.



Guiliani is different...he's like Elliott Ness with delusions of grandeur. He's all about getting the criminals and being in control. In some ways his world view is as simple as Bush's, in that America is always the good guy just because it's America, but in his view it's because of the rule of law, our laws, not anyone elses...but he's much smarter and he's also much more determined and focused.


McCain is different. He's got a much more complex world view than Guiliani or Bush. McCain is the least likely of the 3 to rush into a war out of some kind of pride or belief that America is always inherently the good guy. And while stubborn, he's less stubborn than both Bush and Guiliani. More willing to admit a mistake.

[wut]

That's true...but oddly back in 2000 when it was Bush v McCain I was totally thinking McCain was the crazy nut who would send us to war at the drop of a hat...boy was I wrong.

[Mr. Peabody]

Did they show this video just before Rudy spoke? In other words, was Rudy part of the 9/11 tribute?

LDx80bnFrVs

[2centsworth]

It's not a tough question at all, hence my incredulity at your asking it.
What's taking you so long?

[ChumpDumper]

What's taking you so long?:lol

I'm still waiting to see your explanation why you are so stupid and helpless to look it up yourself. Just say "I'm stupid and helpless, please look up the information for me, ChumpDumper" and I will oblige within seconds.

[whottt]

Which countries? You need to tell the Bush administration right now!


Definitely Saudi Arabia, Iraq(paid Palestinian Suicide Bombers) Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have to do so basically. My guess it that Egypt does too. Russia originally did, in fact they started the whole fucking thing and both Russia and China might again now...ditto France.

And yes, we've done it too.

Now I know you will say that Iraq made it worse, but I will counter with not if Iraq's Democracy sticks it won't...because the reason those countries fund those groups(beyond it being a social program) is because they want the Wstern Democracy, and those Western Jews(that Europe, including our illustrious ally Great Britain) didn't want in Europe, out of the ME.

But a Democratic Iraq is a threat to them as well...thus Iraq is going to have to ally with Israel and us, just by ideology....and yes, those countries are going to make that exceedingly difficult to pull off.



And an ideological alliance with us and Israel takes away a huge recruiting tool of terrorism...and puts pressure on those governments to become Democratic. It's one less lie they can tell to stay in power and redirect the anger.



What our pullout would have done is to prove we don't really care...


And I find it endlessly amusing that the ultimate reasons for so many libs anti-war stance is that you really don't give a shit about the conditions those people live in, or what happens to them, or how bad it gets, you don't care if it ever changes, and you don't realize that it's only going to get worse and more dangerous. And it's going to keep being directed at us....


Those leaders are never going to say, we're shitty leaders and America is great...they are always going to say we're great leaders and America is shitty...it becomes a more difficult lie to pull off with a flourishing Iraq. It becomes an impossible lie. And that's when the cultural change and liberalization of the ME begins...in fact it alredy has. It started the day we went into Afghanistan and the biggest hit to it getting Saddam out of Iraq...because that was an Arab Nation.

[2centsworth]

:lol

I'm still waiting to see your explanation why you are so stupid and helpless to look it up yourself. Just say "I'm stupid and helpless, please look up the information for me, ChumpDumper" and I will oblige within seconds.

That's what i thought troll. My stupidity is replying to you, because you're so tough on the internet. lol

[Spurminator]

It's pretty fucking simple.

There's nothing wrong with saying "Islamic terrorists." No DNC speech condemned the use of the word "Islamic" when describing terrorism.

There's also nothing wrong with just saying "terrorists" without specifying "Islamic." However, Rudy (and Rudy's speechwriters) felt there is something wrong with not specifying "Islamic" when discussing terrorism. They felt it was enough of an offense to include it in a convention speech as a criticism of the Democrats. Why is that?

[ChumpDumper]

That's what i thought troll. My stupidity is replying to you, because you're so tough on the internet. lolI'll give you a hint since you are so completely stupid and helpless.

There is a government department that deals with foreign affairs, including terror.

Need any more help, idiot? Want the google search terms, dumbass? Let me know; I'm here to help stupid people like you.

[Spurminator]

The --- Democrats --- (Obama's) --- timidity --- or --- reluctance --- to vocalize --- their --- opposition --- to --- terrorism.




Specifically Islamic terrorism

They vocalized their opposition to terrorism. They didn't call the terrorists Muslims. So what?

I think we should not only say "Islamic terrorism," but we should further specify that we are fighting "Dark-haired male Islamic terrorism" because why should we be afraid to say everyone who has attacked us has been a man??

[whottt]

Why is that?


Uh...because Rudy's teleprompter was effing up and he started addlibbing.


That statement was all Rudy. How could anyone that is aware of Rudy's past words and actions think otherwise?


By the way...nice use of the fword.

[Spurminator]

Thanks. I try to pick my spots.

[ChumpDumper]

Found it yet, 2centsworth? It took me about five seconds.

[ChumpDumper]

Since you need to be spoon fed like an infant -- a really stupid infant -- here you go.

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Al-Shabaab
5. Ansar al-Islam
6. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
7. Asbat al-Ansar
8. Aum Shinrikyo
9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
11. Continuity Irish Republican Army
12. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
13. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
14. Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
15. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
16. Hizballah (Party of God)
17. Islamic Jihad Group
18. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
19. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
20. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
21. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
22. Kahane Chai (Kach)
23. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
24. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
25. Lashkar i Jhangvi
26. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
27. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
28. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
29. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
30. National Liberation Army (ELN)
31. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
32. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
33. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
34. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
35. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
36. al-Qa’ida
37. al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC)
38. Real IRA
39. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
40. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
41. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
42. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
43. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
44. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)


I just put up the whole list. I'm sure you can pick out the ones that aren't Islamic. Oh, that's right, you're too stupid. Just trust me, they're in there. There's even an Israeli group.

[ChumpDumper]

And of course that doesn't deal at all with domestic terrorist groups. Unfortunately a list hasn't been as incredibly easy to find as the foreign list, so you have absolutely no hope in finding any information on those yourself, 2cent. Rest assured they exist, though -- if no other reason than because I said so.

[jochhejaam]

They vocalized their opposition to terrorism. They didn't call the terrorists Muslims. So what???
So what indeed! You're the one that brought it up, and you're the one that's been seeking the "truth". Don't get pissed at me because you had an abstract take on Guiliani's statement <or, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and get pissed at me :lol>.

[smeagol]

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Al-Shabaab
5. Ansar al-Islam
6. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
7. Asbat al-Ansar
8. Aum Shinrikyo
9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
11. Continuity Irish Republican Army
12. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
13. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
14. Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
15. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
16. Hizballah (Party of God)
17. Islamic Jihad Group
18. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
19. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
20. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
21. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
22. Kahane Chai (Kach)
23. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
24. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
25. Lashkar i Jhangvi
26. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
27. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
28. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
29. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
30. National Liberation Army (ELN)
31. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
32. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
33. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
34. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
35. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
36. al-Qa’ida
37. al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC)
38. Real IRA
39. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
40. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
41. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
42. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
43. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
44. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)



Outside of the ones that are linked to Islam, not sure which of those is at war with the US or wants to destroy the US (at least the ones that my stupid self can pin point and "non-Islamic")

[ChumpDumper]

Outside of the ones that are linked to Islam, not sure which of those is at war with the US or wants to destroy the US (at least the ones that my stupid self can pin point and "non-Islamic")Why the fuck are you chiming in?

And you haven't been keeping up with the news if you think these groups have nothing to do with the US and its citizens.

[smeagol]

Why the fuck are you chiming in?

Chill out dumpchumper. I simply made a comment. I was unaware I needed your permition to post in this thread


And you haven't been keeping up with the news if you think these groups have nothing to do with the US and its citizens.

As I said before, I'm referring to the ones I know: ETA, FARC and Sendero Luminoso, non of which have the capabilities to go to war with the US.

[ChumpDumper]

Chill out dumpchumper. I simply made a comment. I was unaware I needed your permition to post in this thread



As I said before, I'm referring to the ones I know: ETA, FARC and Sendero Luminoso, non of which have the capabilities to go to war with the US.Neither does al Qaeda.

Terrorism <> war.

I was asked for a list of terrorist groups. I gave a list of terrorist groups. If you don't think any one group is important, please take it up with the US government. It's their list.

[Wild Cobra]

What Rudy said made perfect sense. I'm surprised anyone has a prblem with it, unless you only heard a soundbite without context.

I didn't bother reading past the first few threads. I see this subject as pointless, but laughable if that'e the best criticism of his speech.

[ChumpDumper]

I see this subject as pointless, but laughableNow you see how we view most of your posts.

[ggoose25]

:lmao

[smeagol]

Neither does al Qaeda.

Terrorism <> war.

I was asked for a list of terrorist groups. I gave a list of terrorist groups. If you don't think any one group is important, please take it up with the US government. It's their list.

Change "go to war with the US" for "attack the US". ETA, IRA, FARC, etc will probably never attack the US. AQ has, and will probably do it again if allowed.

Another point I found interesting is that from the list, more than 80% appear to Islamic radical groups.

[Spurminator]

So what indeed! You're the one that brought it up, and you're the one that's been seeking the "truth". Don't get pissed at me because you had an abstract take on Guiliani's statement .[/SIZE]

No, Rudy brought it up. And I'm not even talking specifically about my interpretation anymore. Even based on your interpretation it's a confusing concern.

[Spurminator]

What Rudy said made perfect sense. I'm surprised anyone has a prblem with it, unless you only heard a soundbite without context.

I didn't bother reading past the first few threads. I see this subject as pointless, but laughable if that'e the best criticism of his speech.

I posted the entire context of the quote. There is no further meaning to be derived from the rest of the speech that would explain why we should be concerned that Democrats unfairly grouped terrorists with terrorists instead of specifying Islamic terrorism as the country's biggest concern.

I think the best criticism of his speech is that it catered only to the lowest common denominator of blind Rah-Rah Republican loyalists, and anyone with half an ounce of objectivity and rationality should have found the speech insulting to their intelligence. I'm guessing you loved every minute of it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the best criticism of his speech is that it catered only to the lowest common denominator of blind Rah-Rah Republican loyalists, and anyone with half an ounce of objectivity and rationality should have found the speech insulting to their intelligence. I'm guessing you loved every minute of it.

It's the same sort of rhetorical thinking that drives the infantile references to the Democratic candidate as "Hussein." It's an effort to directly associate (even if through subtlety) Obama with Islam and, by extension, with terrorists. Again, if the Democratic candidate was named George Barack Williams and all things remained the same, I doubt that any speechwriter (or speaker) would have made the statement that Giuliani did. But you can't play upon fears if you don't drum up some sort of absurd concerns.

[ChumpDumper]

Change "go to war with the US" for "attack the US". ETA, IRA, FARC, etc will probably never attack the US. AQ has, and will probably do it again if allowed.Again, this is not what was asked, and your little impotent quibbling doesn't change that.


Another point I found interesting is that from the list, more than 80% appear to Islamic radical groups.No shit. You really are the sharp one to be able to point that out.

Genius.

[ChumpDumper]

It's the same sort of rhetorical thinking that drives the infantile references to the Democratic candidate as "Hussein." It's an effort to directly associate (even if through subtlety) Obama with Islam and, by extension, with terrorists. Again, if the Democratic candidate was named George Barack Williams and all things remained the same, I doubt that any speechwriter (or speaker) would have made the statement that Giuliani did. But you can't play upon fears if you don't drum up some sort of absurd concerns.There you go.

[jochhejaam]

It's an effort to directly associate (even if through subtlety) Obama with Islam and, by extension, with terrorists.
"Directly associated" "through subtlety" :lmao
If he were trying to make that point, why would he do it with subtlety? Why hide a connection between Obama and Islam in a subliminal message that no one picks up on?

That's the sort of nonsensical utterance reserved for Obama's commissioned Spin Doctors.

It was clearly an assault by the Republicans on their often used talking point that the Dems are weak in the fight against terrorism, weak on National Defense, and therefore unfit to lead the Country.

And with that, you are in the running for the "Stretch Of The Day" award, and considering some of the b.s. posted in this forum, that's saying a lot.

[smeagol]

Again, this is not what was asked, and your little impotent quibbling doesn't change that.


I don't care what was asked. I made a comment and you got bitchy about it.



No shit. You really are the sharp one to be able to point that out.

Genius.

Ahh . . . you saw it too! I guess you are not that stupid after all.

Then I guess you would agree that saying Islamic Terrorists is not trhat far off when 80% (or more) of the terrorist groups included in the list you posted are inded extreme Islamic groups.

[Yonivore]

I don't care what was asked. I made a comment and you got bitchy about it.
I think Chump needs to crawl through the crowd and touch the hem of Jesus' robe...that bitch has been on a menstrual-induced rant for years now.

[Wild Cobra]

I posted the entire context of the quote. There is no further meaning to be derived from the rest of the speech that would explain why we should be concerned that Democrats unfairly grouped terrorists with terrorists instead of specifying Islamic terrorism as the country's biggest concern.

Well, I disagree. The statement alone has no setup or conclusion. The material just before and for a few minutes after is important:

part of the transcript of Rudy's speech (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/03/raw-data-rudy-giulianis-remarks-at-the-gop-convention/):


We need John McCain to save our economy and make sure it grows, but we need it for a more important purpose. There’s one purpose that John McCain understands, Republicans understand, that overrides everything else: John McCain will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad.

(APPLAUSE)

For — for four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words “Islamic terrorism.”

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please tell me, who are they insulting if they say “Islamic terrorism”? They are insulting terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

Of great concern to me, during those same four days in Denver, they rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11, 2001. They are in a state of denial about the biggest threat that faces this country.

And if you deny it and you don’t deal with it, you can’t face it.

John McCain can face the enemy. He can win, and he can bring victory for this country.

(APPLAUSE)

Let’s look at just one example at a lifetime of principled stands that John McCain’s brought about: his support for the troop surge in Iraq. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq.

And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, when they gave up on Iraq, they had given up on America.

(APPLAUSE)

The Democratic leader — the Democratic leader of the Senate said, and I quote, “This war is lost.”

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

Well, well, if America lost, who won, Al Qaida, bin Laden?

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right, and Barack Obama got it wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

Senator McCain — Senator — Senator McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge, and it was unpopular. What do you think most other politicians would have done in a situation like this?
They would have acted in their self-interest, and they would have changed their position in order to win an election. How many times have we seen Barack Obama do this?

[Spurminator]

So what part of the "context" you provided explains why Islamic terrorism is the only kind of terrorism we should mention as a concern to our national security?

[smeagol]

Islamic terrorism is not the only form of terroriss the US should be mindfull of, but it is by far the one form it should be paying the most attention to.

Communist releated terrorism and drug related terrorism come as distant second a third.