Those guys were all Iraqis.
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.
Who cares. Anything that attacks PC is good in my book.
Were any of you guys folliwing politics prior to 2001?
Guiliani kicked Nobel Peace Prize Winner
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.
Last edited by whottt; 09-06-2008 at 02:08 PM.
You're exactly who he wanted to offend with that statement.
"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?
You're the one who said Iraq was a bad war.
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.
Whose cities?
Al Qaeda's?
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.
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 out of those that intimidate.
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 doesn't back down to intimidation...that's what you guys need to understand about him....and that scares the out of those that intimidate.
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.
He also didn't take us into Iraq...and that's what you need to understand about him...and this thread...
Strawman.
Yep....
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?
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....
Is there another way to describe terrorists that are Islamic? <serious question>
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.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.
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.
The only terrorists in the world are Islamic terrorists!!!!!
I don't believe he even ran last time, so this is a pretty stupid claim.
You are really making up a bunch of lately. it's disappointing.Fact.
Fact.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
