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.
Did the Democrats completely avoid the subject of terrorism the entire convention?
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.
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?
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.
He was just throwing more nouns and verbs around.
My friend posted this on his facebook: "Giuliani=noun+verb+9/11"
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.
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 from McSame and his team.
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
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.
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.
Asshole Giuliani trash talking HUSSEIN for not preceding terrorist with Islamic illustrates the ty level the Repugs have been reduced to. It's a distraction, pure bull 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.
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.
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.
"heaven forbid I use that term"
nobody's forbidding anybody, and I'm sure heaven doesn't give .
Why not include the dear Bush family friends: "Saudi Arabian Islamic Terrorists" ?
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?
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.
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]
I guess Timothy McVeigh was less dangerous because he was an agnostic terrorist....
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
