PDA

View Full Version : Rudy's bad example of the 1972 Munich Olympics




LastoftheMohicans
01-06-2008, 08:17 AM
The Ghoul tried to use the killing of Israelis at the '72 Olympics as an example of where Muslim Fundamentalists attacked a country other than the U.S. This is a bad example for two reasons. Firstly, it had to do with the Palenstinian(sp?)/Israeli conflict, not Muslims vs. Non-Muslims. Of the Palenstinians who opposed Israeli occupation many are indeed Muslims but many are Christians, too. It's an occupation thing, not a religious thing. Secondly, the attacks happened in Germany but the targets weren't the German people. It just happened that the Olympics were in Germany that year. If he brought up London that was a bad example too because the British have been involved in the Middle East. I don't know about the Spanish. He seemed to be lumping all terrorist attacks under the mantra of Islamic terrorist.

graystar
01-06-2008, 08:26 AM
I thought the same thing - esp considering that Israel is propped up by the US at least in middle east eyes.

More blowback....

Antonius Stone
01-06-2008, 08:53 AM
I don't know about the Spanish. He seemed to be lumping all terrorist attacks under the mantra of Islamic terrorist.

the Spanish had troops in Iraq until they got attacked. then they withdrew

Chester Copperpot
01-06-2008, 08:54 AM
I thought the same thing - esp considering that Israel is propped up by the US at least in middle east eyes.

More blowback....

+1

kushaze
01-06-2008, 09:03 AM
No matter what idiot things that come out of Rudy Giuliani's mouth people are going to believe them. Most people don't care to research things themselves. Trust me, I know a lot of uninformed neoconservatives that think the same way and refuse to read the books that I reference to them. They think that I am "believing in the left wing propaganda." We are dealing with people who are afraid of the truth, or are so fearful that they don't want to believe in the truth.

I get called a liberal way more than I can handle for my stance on the war. Its really starting to piss me off. All I can do is try to get them to be a little more open to opposing ideas and hope that they will eventually see through the fear mongering politics of the neoconservatives. I also hate being called a paleoconservative. I don't affiliate with any party but if I were to describe my political ideology it would be a cross between Libertarianism and Taft/Goldwater conservatism.

Knut Schreiber
01-06-2008, 10:02 AM
The other examples were as bad. After Span got attacked they changed their Prime Minister and he withdrew all troops from Iraq. After that there haven't be any more terrorist attacks or threats against Spain.
Ghoul also mentioned Germany and the UK. Well, we are in Afghanistan. The UK is in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's all blowback! Ron should have mentioned the concept and the CIA by name.

Eponym_mi
01-06-2008, 10:04 AM
All of his examples were bad..classic misdirection. I wish RP would have called him on all his BS.

Ronpauladin
01-06-2008, 10:09 AM
All of his examples were bad..classic misdirection. I wish RP would have called him on all his BS.

same here

ladyliberty
01-06-2008, 10:10 AM
Ron Paul should start using this map as an overhead when he speaks to give people a clearer picture of exactly where the terrorist attacks have been occurring - not all over the world as the fear mongerers would have you believe...

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&om=1&msa=0&msid=100547042535873345331.0004384ce0e13337be966&ll=14.604847,63.984375&spn=91.237243,105.46875&z=3&source=embed

lbadragan
01-06-2008, 10:31 AM
Arguing foreign policy with neocons is like explaining navigation to flat-earthers.

Their assumptions prevent them from comprehending the facts so they twist everyhing to make it conform to their assumptions. The assumptions they use is that the only reasons we are attacked is because terrorists hate us for our freedoms and because they want to take over the world and we're their biggest obstacle. Ron Paul would be better served running a 30 minute infomercial on primetime explaining why this is grossly false than running commercials on positions with which he's in agreement with the republican party and will do nothing to draw votes from the others.

RonPaulalways
01-06-2008, 10:56 AM
He used the example of the Munich attack in 1972, which was committed by Palestinians linked to Fatah, a secular Palestinian resistance group, as an example of Islamic radicalism. What a lying piece of shit.

The leader of the Munich attack, Luttif Afif, was born of a Christian father and a Jewish mother and was in no way muslim.

He used the Bali and London attacks to show that Islamic radicals attack countries because they're free and prosperous, when in reality the London attacks were motivated by the UK's participation in the Iraq war, and the Bali bombings targeted Australian tourists, and were also motivated by Australia's participation in the invasion of Iraq.

Rudy is a lying piece of shit and the mainstream believes his blatant misrepresentations of reality and history.

lbadragan
01-06-2008, 11:28 AM
Rudy is a lying piece of shit and the mainstream believes his blatant misrepresentations of reality and history.Great post but I disagree with this statement. Many people in the media know he's lying. They just don't want to rock the boat. We don't have truth tellers in the MSM anymore. We have good employees who contribute to the bottom line - at all costs.

james1844
01-06-2008, 11:32 AM
Actually the Munich Olympics attack was committed by a secular terrorist organization. The PLO was socialist back in the 1970s. - Once again Rudy is playing hard and fast with the facts.

ChristopherJ
01-06-2008, 11:46 AM
RG also made a point about giving money back to the Suadi prince after 9/11. RP could have nailed him on his law firm not being opposed to taking money from Qatar.

seapilot
01-06-2008, 11:47 AM
All of his examples were bad..classic misdirection. I wish RP would have called him on all his BS.

He did well considering he was ganged up on by 5 nationbuilders. Imagine if it was turned around and there was 5 strict constitutionalists ganging up on one of them, my guess is those cowards would cry momma on national tv.


I get called a liberal way more than I can handle for my stance on the war. Its really starting to piss me off.


This only means they cant or wont openly debate. They dont have answers or knowledge of the questions that are brought up so to look superior they resort to name calling. It means you won the debate.