EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
Does anyone here honestly think she had ever heard the term "blood libel" before it was written for her?
Actually that was my line of thinking too
Arizona shooting: Sarah Palin breaks silence and accuses critics of 'blood libel'
- Thread starter EnglishLady
- Start date
Actually that was my line of thinking too
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Does anyone here honestly think she had ever heard the term "blood libel" before it was written for her?
No..........
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
I have to wonder how any of us here would react to basically being accused of being an accomplice to murder.
And being poked and prodded for not making a statement.
And then when you make a statement, it's taken apart and held up for ridicule......
When the dialog should be about the lives lost, those that were injured and ALL of their families.
As far as her using the term "blood libel", Alan Dershowitz has this to say.....and he's probably more intelligent than most of us here......
Lastly, did YOU know what that term meant before she used it? I didn't.....I'd never heard it before.
And being poked and prodded for not making a statement.
And then when you make a statement, it's taken apart and held up for ridicule......
When the dialog should be about the lives lost, those that were injured and ALL of their families.
As far as her using the term "blood libel", Alan Dershowitz has this to say.....and he's probably more intelligent than most of us here......
Lastly, did YOU know what that term meant before she used it? I didn't.....I'd never heard it before.
Of course I didn't. I thought it was the name of an '80s cover band.
Posted with my iPhone EO Forum App
Posted with my iPhone EO Forum App
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
I didn't either, but maybe it is more well known amongst the Jewish population
From the Guardian link from OP.
Her use of the phrase "blood libel" was immediately questioned because, historically, it refers to the false accusation that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals. Giffords, who remains in critical condition after being shot in the head, is the first Jewish congresswoman from Arizona.
Some critics accused Palin of insensitivity. Others questioned whether she spoke through ignorance of the meaning of the term, just as when President George Bush apparently failed to appreciate the impact in the Muslim world of calling the US invasion of Iraq a "crusade".
A pro-Israel lobby group, J Street, called on Palin to apologise for the reference because her use of it "pains and offends" many Jews.
"We hope that governor Palin will recognise, when it is brought to her attention, that the term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds," the group said.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group in New York that campaigns against antisemitism, said that while it "was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy", it objected to her language.
"We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. while the term has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history," it said.
Julie Roginsky, a Democratic party strategist, said that she does not blame Palin "for the actions of one deranged gunman". She added: "The term 'blood libel,' however, is a term so loaded with bigotry and historic persecution that it should be consigned to the ash heap of history where the darkest days of antisemitism dwell. Whether she was aware of its historical context is irrelevant. She is a national figure with a huge following and so she should use her words carefully," she wrote in a Politico blog.
Let's hope all people of goodwill reject the political exploitation that took place in Tucson last night. All self-respecting Democrats should call for Barack Obama's resignation immediately. The man is a national embarrassment! Who is he to lecture anyone about harsh political rhetoric? Remember, Obama and his ilk perfected the use of inflammatory rhetoric in their unrelenting verbal attacks on George W. Bush and the GOP. How dare Obama present himself as Little Bo Peep.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I think you might be in the minority in thinking that the President exploited this tragic incident last night. I could be wrong though.
Care to show us examples of the President lecturing about harsh political rhetoric pertaining to what happened in AZ.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
I didn't either, but maybe it is more well known amongst the Jewish population
That could be but I would also consider that many Christians actually use more traditional Jewish terms than one would think.
When I read again what Dershowitz said, it appears to me that using the term was correct.....she certainly was/is falsely accused.
When I see pundits using the term "PDS" or "BDS", I don't find it difficult to see where they come up with those terms because no one is willing to "own" anything....it's ALWAYS Palin or Bush's fault.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
You mean you didn't get your shirt???
How pathetic......STORY HERE.
It DID sound more like a pep rally.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
How F******* maddening this really is.
The hateful division in this country is fed by events like this and for some reason everyone who is either level headed or sane about matters like this are running around like chickens with the sky falling.
Her speech, whether or not offensive to the ADL is the right speech - the words she used to illustrate the point don't matter, the response, the facts and the attitude do. BUT we have to have the media on both sides picking apart the speech to find something wrong or right when there isn't any wrong or right because she is responding to an attack they used by reasoning that she singlehandedly caused this guy to shoot people.
The same goes for calling this a national tragedy. It isn't by any sane definition. People want to make it out as one to either gain political credit or to make a political statement or just fall into being mind numbed. THIS is my complaint, be making into a national tragedy, we are allowing our standards to be lowered to something that everything that happens has to have a federal response to it and Obama has used this exactly as predicted to show us, the people of this country that he is leading when in fact there is no need for him to become so involved - we are truly a soft country.
The fact is this was one guy who for what ever reason (WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HIM YET SO WE DON'T KNOW WHY) decided to shoot at another person and in doing so killed others. The other facts are twisted to make it look like there is more to this than there really is - like the mental health issues that are being talked about to prevent this from happening again and expanding the definition of what is a child and what isn't. The one I like is the charge for killing a federal judge is made on the basis that he was performing his duties but for me him being at a political rally is not the same as sitting on the bench and adjudicating cases or being a target for doing his job - big difference.
Some of you play into the idea that this is a national tragedy miss a very important point that you are being told it is by the same media who is complicit in covering up really serious crimes that go on against innocent people in mass because of the past few administrations need to gain political clout with a ethnic group - that's as sick as this individual who went on the shooting spree. The media has the general public fooled in thinking that they are always right and they do it by driving the point home in this case that their competition, the Internet and social networking are part of the cause of what happened from their point of view, with the added twist that it is a right wing person that happened to pull the trigger. They are telling you who is important, who needs to be morned and what to feel about those who were hurt - the same thing goes for the Palin speech.
There is a question about the Sheriff of the county who has been braggadocios about some issues, no one in the main stream media (including fox who has just driven this into the ground too) has yet spoken about his performance, how much crime in in his county compared to his neighboring country where That famous sheriff controls the crime by doing the right thing. It is his speech that is incendiary, it seems to be hateful and may end up triggering another nut case to do another violent act.
The hateful division in this country is fed by events like this and for some reason everyone who is either level headed or sane about matters like this are running around like chickens with the sky falling.
Her speech, whether or not offensive to the ADL is the right speech - the words she used to illustrate the point don't matter, the response, the facts and the attitude do. BUT we have to have the media on both sides picking apart the speech to find something wrong or right when there isn't any wrong or right because she is responding to an attack they used by reasoning that she singlehandedly caused this guy to shoot people.
The same goes for calling this a national tragedy. It isn't by any sane definition. People want to make it out as one to either gain political credit or to make a political statement or just fall into being mind numbed. THIS is my complaint, be making into a national tragedy, we are allowing our standards to be lowered to something that everything that happens has to have a federal response to it and Obama has used this exactly as predicted to show us, the people of this country that he is leading when in fact there is no need for him to become so involved - we are truly a soft country.
The fact is this was one guy who for what ever reason (WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HIM YET SO WE DON'T KNOW WHY) decided to shoot at another person and in doing so killed others. The other facts are twisted to make it look like there is more to this than there really is - like the mental health issues that are being talked about to prevent this from happening again and expanding the definition of what is a child and what isn't. The one I like is the charge for killing a federal judge is made on the basis that he was performing his duties but for me him being at a political rally is not the same as sitting on the bench and adjudicating cases or being a target for doing his job - big difference.
Some of you play into the idea that this is a national tragedy miss a very important point that you are being told it is by the same media who is complicit in covering up really serious crimes that go on against innocent people in mass because of the past few administrations need to gain political clout with a ethnic group - that's as sick as this individual who went on the shooting spree. The media has the general public fooled in thinking that they are always right and they do it by driving the point home in this case that their competition, the Internet and social networking are part of the cause of what happened from their point of view, with the added twist that it is a right wing person that happened to pull the trigger. They are telling you who is important, who needs to be morned and what to feel about those who were hurt - the same thing goes for the Palin speech.
There is a question about the Sheriff of the county who has been braggadocios about some issues, no one in the main stream media (including fox who has just driven this into the ground too) has yet spoken about his performance, how much crime in in his county compared to his neighboring country where That famous sheriff controls the crime by doing the right thing. It is his speech that is incendiary, it seems to be hateful and may end up triggering another nut case to do another violent act.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
For 2-3 days we were told that Obawa and Mrs Obawa were going to attend a "MEMORIAL" service for the victims in Arizona. When that Mexican/Indian started speaking at the very start, and the cheering began, I knew this was all going to be a huge farce. When the Booos started as Governor Brewer stepped up, I changed the channel. I wasn't going to listen too, or be swayed by the Democratic Political Pep Rally that was taking place. I had no idea what Obawa said until this morning. (Believe it or not, I was very entertained by watching Full Throttle Saloon instead)
Now I read what Obawa said last night in the link above. I do not agree with his flip floppin with these 2 paragraphs here:
First he says this:
Look in your Parties mirror Mr Obawa, America has had to put up with sharply polarized discourse towards the Republican Party, mainly towards GWB for years and years now.
The second part I am taking that in his mind, or in his speech writers mind, that there's a chance in their beliefs that Yes, the polarized discourse in our politics might have caused the wounds that took place last Saturday.
Then he says this:
So again, in his mind, he does have a slight belief that the political rhetoric could have very well caused this. But, he will not admit this until all the facts are in. He left the door open to finalize his opinion when and if that Jared Loughlin ever speaks out and confesses to what his intent and motives were when he went on that murderous rampage.
Again, last night was farce, a political pep rally for the Democratic Party and their beliefs, Period. Sad thing is, they probably don't realize it either.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
BUT.... Brisco... the dems need these things to help them in the polls.
One reason why the media helps them along with controlling information and telling us what we are supposed to feel.
Has been that way since Clinton's administration and maybe even into the Reagan administration with the democratic congress.
One reason why the media helps them along with controlling information and telling us what we are supposed to feel.
Has been that way since Clinton's administration and maybe even into the Reagan administration with the democratic congress.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Megyn Kelly on Fox News has done just that.
YouTube - Megyn Kelly Asks Pima Co. Sheriff Why Are You Politicizing This Tragedy
Watch the video closely. As she delves more and more into his personal political beliefs and opinions, his eyes start to squint more, and his facial expression starts to tighten up. Close to the end of the interview, he starts looking to his right. Who is he looking at?? His aides??? My bet is he's trying to get someone to bring the interview to a close very quickly.
Interview last about 7-8 minutes, and so far has been the longest 1 on 1 interview he's given. My bet, he will not speak in front of a camera where he does not have full control over the interview from here on out. Very sad individual that is way past his limelight and needs to retire into obscurity.
Farce indeed. This event was scripted by Democrats, for Democrats. As soon as the Mexican/Indian/Native American began his spiel (invoking hoots, hollering and applause) I switched to The Weather Channel. This should have been a non-political event but Obama and Co. were intent on milking this tragedy for all it was worth. I read the entire text of Obama's speech online. The guy is so polarizing, so divisive, so full of hypocrisy... half the nation will not listen nor believe anything he says. If not for the mainstream media propping him up and cheerleading for Obama, his electoral chances would be nil. The 2012 campaign began last night in Tucson.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I did see that now, but Fox has been leading the "turning now to the tragedy in Tuscon" segments and like Hannitty yesterday, he along with others of his type have been doing the same thing - making into a big deal.
The dems are just the same as the republicans on this issue, they played it up and made it out as important.
The dems are just the same as the republicans on this issue, they played it up and made it out as important.
Black Sheep
Expert Expediter
We only have to look at the Dershowitz quote (posted twice in this thread) to get a true perspective of the modern interpretation of this obscure phrase. It shouldn't be any surprise that the liberal Jews such as the Democrat party strategist above would be "offended". The Democrats and their accomplices in the media have their orders: create unrelenting criticism for everything Palin says and does. They did the same thing with George Bush. It doesn't make any difference to them whether or not the criticism is justified, and if all else fails just make something up. I'll bet if Sarah Palin recited the Lord's Prayer there would be liberals somewhere that would be offended.I didn't either, but maybe it is more well known amongst the Jewish population
From the Guardian link from OP.
Her use of the phrase "blood libel" was immediately questioned because, historically, it refers to the false accusation that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals...
Some critics accused Palin of insensitivity. Others questioned whether she spoke through ignorance of the meaning of the term, just as when President George Bush apparently failed to appreciate the impact in the Muslim world of calling the US invasion of Iraq a "crusade".
A pro-Israel lobby group, J Street, called on Palin to apologise for the reference because her use of it "pains and offends" many Jews...
The Anti-Defamation League, a group in New York that campaigns against antisemitism, said that while it "was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy", it objected to her language.
"We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. while the term has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history," it said.
Julie Roginsky, a Democratic party strategist, said that she does not blame Palin "for the actions of one deranged gunman". She added: "The term 'blood libel,' however, is a term so loaded with bigotry and historic persecution...
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Well duh.....most liberals are atheists, so yeah, they probably would be offended.
Liberals are offended by most anything. They are MOST offended when they look in the mirror and see what wimps they are!!
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Well I would think any person in their right mind, left, right or middle would acknowledge that the President's speech last night was well done and placed the spotlight just where it should be, the victims and their families along with those that performed heroically during this tragedy. I watched FoxNews' roundtable after his speech and for God's sake, they all agreed that it was a honorable speech. Any reasonable person can see that.
I don't believe that presidents should be running around to all these "tragedy events" as they have become. It makes no difference it that speech was "honorable" or not. I think that when presidents travel to these "horror events" it just makes them worse and it seems to me that it is just another form of campaigning. They are just there to take advantage of the horror and sorrow. Makes no difference what "flavor" president it is, Dumb-O-Crat or ReBumLiCan.