Jimmy Carter is a terrorist

Abdul Alhazred · 28th December 2008, 06:56 AM

Not a sympathizer. Not an apologist. Not a propagandist.

A terrorist.

Jimmy Carter proudly becomes Hamas advisor
Israel Today

Quote:

Former US President Jimmy Carter proudly announced on his website at the weekend that during his recent visit to Damascus he advised Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on what price to demand for hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
[ Emphasis added: Using his expertise for more effective terrorism -- AA ]

In a trip report posted to the website of The Carter Center, the former president described Mashal and the other Hamas men he met with as respectable, suit-wearing professionals, and pointedly suggested that none of them are religious fanatics.

Carter's visit to Lebanon and Syria last week, like a similar visit several months ago, greatly angered US officials and prominent American commentators.

In addition to meeting with a Syrian regime that Washington is trying to isolate, Carter made a point of sitting down with Hamas and requesting an audience with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah refused the meeting.

Carter insists that Hamas and Hizballah are powerful and legitimate players on the Middle East stage that must be engaged in dialogue, while his critics say it is because of people like Carter that groups like Hamas gain legitimacy and become impossible to defeat.

He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.

The Central Scrutinizer · 28th December 2008, 07:05 AM

Are all writers for that website illiterate? Or just Ryan Jones? Is that a requirement for the job?

I can imagine really, really, really stupid people all over the world reading that article and believing it. The more intelligent will then read the article it points to (the Carter website) and then laughing at how stupid and illiterate Ryan Jones is! Of course, there will still be some incredibly stupid people who think it says what Ryan Jones says it says. The super intelligent among us will howl with laughter over how stupid these people are.

Thanks for posting this satirical example of how stupid people really can be!

BirdStrike · 28th December 2008, 07:25 AM

Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad.

I think a designated international terrorist organization should change it's spots before ex-presidents give them political legitimacy. Not just their suits.

But that is just my opinion.

ravdin · 28th December 2008, 09:55 AM

I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt.

Bob Blaylock · 28th December 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad.

Carter has always seemed to be devoted to a naïve belief that even the most evil terrorists in the world would turn and be nice to us if only we'd meet with them and understand them and try to negotiate with them. It never worked when he was President, and it hasn't worked in any of his attempts since then, but he seems to remain convinced that if he keeps on trying, eventually it will work.

I therefore see it as unsurprising and unremarkable that he might now be meeting with Hamas, and trying to convince them to “play nice”. For this, I can't fault him for anything more than the same naïve idealism that he has always had.

If, however, he has advised them, as the article claims, on what ransom to ask for a hostage, then that's another matter. If this claim is true, then he has crossed the line from merely meeting and negotiating, to being a willing accomplice. Perhaps it's a bit over the top to call him a “terrorist”, for such as this, but it certainly constitutes a serious betrayal.

ravdin · 28th December 2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

If, however, he has advised them, as the article claims, on what ransom to ask for a hostage, then that's another matter. If this claim is true, then he has crossed the line from merely meeting and negotiating, to being a willing accomplice. Perhaps it's a bit over the top to call him a “terrorist”, for such as this, but it certainly constitutes a serious betrayal.

From Carter's website:

Quote:

We discussed items on my agenda that included an extension of the ceasefire in Gaza, life there under the Israeli sanctions, the Arab peace initiative, reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the future of Palestinian leadership and elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit.

Emphasis mine. That seems like a euphemism for ransom negotiation to me.

ddt · 28th December 2008, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

From Carter's website:

Emphasis mine. That seems like a euphemism for ransom negotiation to me.

Why call it an euphemism? It is ransom negotiation. But what's bad about that? It's done routinely. The German government mediated in getting the release of (the bodies of) the two Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah.

However, the "Israel Today" article changed it into

Quote:

he advised Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on what price to demand for hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit

which implies that Carter took a partisan stance in this. That's the dirty spin on it.

Doctor Evil · 28th December 2008, 12:08 PM

The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.) Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides.

Beerina · 28th December 2008, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt.

That the local terrorist leaders are more interested in securing power and wealth than they are of the surface arguments they use for the masses has a lot more explanatory power than that they are leading some kind of freedom movement.

ddt · 28th December 2008, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.)

Fair enough. As far as I'm aware, he isn't accepted by Hamas either as mediator.

But that doesn't mean he can't try to do so? I'm pretty sure there have been other mediators in the past who started out without being recognized by one or both sides. The various (failed) initiatives for an Israeli-Syrian peace come to mind.

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides.

You're conflating two issues. It sounds as if you say that anyone who tries to mediate without recognition as such, must be by default a traitor to your favorite side.

Thunder · 28th December 2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.

You should watch who you call a "terrorist".

Someone might get the obviously false impression that you label anyone who you disagree with, a terrorist. Wouldn't that be a shame?

There is nothing wrong with anyone seeking a peaceful outcome to any situation.

Right Abdul?

Doctor Evil · 28th December 2008, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

You're conflating two issues. It sounds as if you say that anyone who tries to mediate without recognition as such, must be by default a traitor to your favorite side.

Not really. It sounds as if I suspect that Carter favours one side. Maybe this has to do with his past actions and writings. I would not assume the same for others.

Still, several uncoordinated mediators are more likely to harm then help. To get such deals both sides have to compromise on things they do not really want to. This is less likely to happen if some other mediator appears and offer one of the sides a better deal.

Thunder · 28th December 2008, 12:44 PM

A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals.

Who did Carter kill...and what goal is he trying to achieve?

Abdul Alhazred · 28th December 2008, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Someone might get the obviously false impression that you label anyone who you disagree with, a terrorist. Wouldn't that be a shame?

Meaning you don't know me very well.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with anyone seeking a peaceful outcome to any situation.

Right Abdul?

Define "peaceful outcome".

Abdul Alhazred · 28th December 2008, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals.

Who did Carter kill...and what goal is he trying to achieve?

Accessory after the fact, if the story is true.

If the story is not true, then only an apologist and propagandist for mass murder.

a_unique_person · 28th December 2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Not a sympathizer. Not an apologist. Not a propagandist.

A terrorist.

Jimmy Carter proudly becomes Hamas advisor
Israel Today

He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.

It looks like you've been playing "chinese whispers".

The Fool · 28th December 2008, 06:09 PM

What the Hey...the story was plausable enough to get Abduls hormones pumping....

lionking · 28th December 2008, 06:10 PM

If the article is true, Carter has given Hamas a huge propaganda boost if nothing else. He is a fool.

Learning Phase · 28th December 2008, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

If the article is true, Carter has given Hamas a huge propaganda boost if nothing else. He is a fool.

If the article Isn't true, Carter is still a gullible fool.

Nothing has changed.

JoeyDonuts · 28th December 2008, 09:56 PM

Perhaps Carter honestly believes he is helping to alleviate the nearly impossible situation.

However, the latest round of rocket attacks is only just another in a long line of total failures on the part of the Palestinians to "police themselves." One has to wonder how these groups are still able to receive thousands and thousands of the ubiquitous 107mm "Katyusha" rockets that are continually launched into Israeli population centers.

There doesn't seem to be any real motivation for HAMAS or whoever purports to be in charge of the Palestinians to identify and hold responsible the individuals who are launching the ordnance into Israel.

Doesn't Mr. Carter's presence there seem to imply at face value that he represents the United States in this matter? Last time I checked we don't negotiate with terrorists, even on behalf of another sovreign state. Did something change since Entebbe, or are the Israelis now negotiating with terror groups now?

Kestrel · 29th December 2008, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

Perhaps Carter honestly believes he is helping to alleviate the nearly impossible situation.

However, the latest round of rocket attacks is only just another in a long line of total failures on the part of the Palestinians to "police themselves." One has to wonder how these groups are still able to receive thousands and thousands of the ubiquitous 107mm "Katyusha" rockets that are continually launched into Israeli population centers.

There doesn't seem to be any real motivation for HAMAS or whoever purports to be in charge of the Palestinians to identify and hold responsible the individuals who are launching the ordnance into Israel.

Doesn't Mr. Carter's presence there seem to imply at face value that he represents the United States in this matter? Last time I checked we don't negotiate with terrorists, even on behalf of another sovreign state. Did something change since Entebbe, or are the Israelis now negotiating with terror groups now?

Israeli politicians keep making the claim that they don't negotiate with terrorists, but it's not true.

In July of this year, Israel negotiated a deal with Hezbollah where prisoners were exchanged for the bodies of dead Israeli soldiers. This was just one of many such deals .

Rob Lister · 29th December 2008, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Accessory after the fact, if the story is true.

If the story is not true, then only an apologist and propagandist for mass murder.

give him a break. He's just trying to live up to that Nobel prize he shared a couple of decades ago.

What was that for again?

Rob Lister · 29th December 2008, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

give him a break. He's just trying to live up to that Nobel prize he shared a couple of decades ago.

What was that for again?

Yo Abdul, I talkin' to you bitch!

Darth Rotor · 29th December 2008, 09:27 AM

From another thread, Gaza Strip is about one tenth the size of Harris County Texas, with a quarter of the population.

Let's see: if people in Harris County were launching rockets into Galveston County, how long do you think it would be before the officials in Harris County got down to brass tacks and did something about it?

Hmmmmmm?

Two years?

I think not.

President Carter ... not sure what he thinks he can achieve.

DR

Mark6 · 31st December 2008, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Carter has always seemed to be devoted to a naïve belief that even the most evil terrorists in the world would turn and be nice to us if only we'd meet with them and understand them and try to negotiate with them. It never worked when he was President, and it hasn't worked in any of his attempts since then, but he seems to remain convinced that if he keeps on trying, eventually it will work.

I am fairly certain Carter actually believes that it has worked.

Kestrel · 31st December 2008, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I am fairly certain Carter actually believes that it has worked.

The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked.

daredelvis · 31st December 2008, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

From another thread, Gaza Strip is about one tenth the size of Harris County Texas, with a quarter of the population.

Let's see: if people in Harris County were launching rockets into Galveston County, how long do you think it would be before the officials in Harris County got down to brass tacks and did something about it?

Hmmmmmm?

Two years?

I think not.

President Carter ... not sure what he thinks he can achieve.

DR

I live in Harris county. While some comparisons between Gaza and Harris county might be valid, I think there is a slight (enormous) difference in the magnitude of chaos, poverty, and inept government between the two (mind you, I live in the third ward). Not a good comparison.

Daredelvis

Mark6 · 31st December 2008, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked.

Yes, there is that.

JoeyDonuts · 31st December 2008, 10:26 AM

That may have something to do with the PIRA wanting out of the blowing up stuff business after 9/11.

Cleon · 31st December 2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

That may have something to do with the PIRA wanting out of the blowing up stuff business after 9/11.

Nah, the peace process had been going on since the mid-90s. Hell, the Provos signed off on the GFA in 1998, three full years before 9/11.

JoeyDonuts · 31st December 2008, 08:38 PM

Maybe they should send Gerry Adams down there to negotiate.

littlehulkster · 31st December 2008, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked.

The negotiated settlement between the Zapatistas and Mexican government has worked remarkably well, too.

Once you realize that terrorists just might have a reason behind why they're doing what they're doing instead of just assuming they woke up and decided to blow something up, you can actually make a remarkable amount of progress with minimal bloodshed.

fuelair · 1st January 2009, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals.

?

and/or provides material, assistance/protection for those so acting.

Giving any advice (other than "crawl off and die" OR "do you understand, really understand, what fabs can do to you?" and equivalent) that helps terrorists is conspiracy with them.

Note, at this point I am not calling Carter a terrorist - but, if he did advise Hamas on what to get for a prisoner (who I must assume they will kill as previously happened prior to returning). Oh, as to returning prisoners dead, I fully support IDF returning prisoners from a thousand feet up as an appropriate response.

Skeptic · 1st January 2009, 02:04 AM

I don't think Carter is a terrorist. He simply is a naive fool, who thinks that if he'll be nice to people like Mashaal, and understand him, Mashaal will somehow become reasonable. Advising Mashaal is doing the man a small favor, in order to turn him around, make him "less extremist".

The problem is that Carter is so far gone in his dementia that he moved from "understanding" to "helping out" in small, symbolic ways. If Mashaal had asked, as a personal favor of one freedom-loving man to another, that Carter use his diplomatic immunity and status as an ex-US president to help Mashaal smuggle some rockets into Gaza, Carter would do it.

Kestrel · 1st January 2009, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I don't think Carter is a terrorist. He simply is a naive fool, who thinks that if he'll be nice to people like Mashaal, and understand him, Mashaal will somehow become reasonable. Advising Mashaal is doing the man a small favor, in order to turn him around, make him "less extremist".

The problem is that Carter is so far gone in his dementia that he moved from "understanding" to "helping out" in small, symbolic ways. If Mashaal had asked, as a personal favor of one freedom-loving man to another, that Carter use his diplomatic immunity and status as an ex-US president to help Mashaal smuggle some rockets into Gaza, Carter would do it.

You called Carter a "naive fool" and then claimed he has dementia. As a followup, you made an unsupported claimed that Carter would smuggle weapons to a terrorist.

Argument by insult may pass for reason at your local bar, but it's not appropriate on a skeptics forum. Can you give it another try using documented facts and valid logic?

JoeyDonuts · 1st January 2009, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

If Mashaal had asked, as a personal favor of one freedom-loving man to another, that Carter use his diplomatic immunity and status as an ex-US president to help Mashaal smuggle some rockets into Gaza, Carter would do it.

I don't know about THAT. Not sure that he's qualified to be an arms dealer anyway.

Sunni Man · 1st January 2009, 08:31 AM

Carter at least trying to do something in talking to Hamas.

Hamas has legitimate issues that need to be discussed.

He is giving a voice to people that have No access to the media.

Skeptic · 1st January 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Sunni Man

Carter at least trying to do something in talking to Hamas.

Hamas has legitimate issues that need to be discussed.

He is giving a voice to people that have No access to the media.

Oh, I dunno about that. Hamas seems to have access to the media. Hamas TV from Gaza, for example, is well known for its deep insight into current sociological issues:

Its fascinating historical shows:

Of course, there's also its award-winning educational children's television:

Er... what were those "legitimate issues" Carter needs to discuss with those folks, again?

Skeptic · 1st January 2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

As a followup, you made an unsupported claimed that Carter would smuggle weapons to a terrorist.

Why "unsupported"?

He met with him, despite the man being a wanted terrorist by his own country.

He secretly advised him about how many terrorists to demand in return for an Israeli soldier.

So he certainly seems quite willing to defy his own country to aid and support wanted terrorists in words and deed. Why won't he accept smuggling as well? Certainly, morally speaking, there isn't much difference.

As for the "deluded idiot" claim, I'd say any US president who knowingly meets with a wanted terrorist and advises him on how to act is a deluded idiot.

That's at least the most chariatable explanation. The other one -- that he is a Hamas supporter and therefore, indeed, a terrorist -- is much worse.

Sunni Man · 1st January 2009, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Oh, I dunno about that. Hamas seems to have access to the media. Hamas TV from Gaza, for example, is well known for its deep insight into current sociological issues:
Er... what were those "legitimate issues" Carter needs to discuss with those folks, again?

Gaza and Hamas media outlets are a far cry from access the giant media corporations of CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.

28th December 2008, 06:56 AM	#1
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Jimmy Carter is a terrorist Not a sympathizer. Not an apologist. Not a propagandist. A terrorist. Jimmy Carter proudly becomes Hamas advisor Israel Today Quote: Former US President Jimmy Carter proudly announced on his website at the weekend that during his recent visit to Damascus he advised Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on what price to demand for hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. [ Emphasis added: Using his expertise for more effective terrorism -- AA ] In a trip report posted to the website of The Carter Center, the former president described Mashal and the other Hamas men he met with as respectable, suit-wearing professionals, and pointedly suggested that none of them are religious fanatics. Carter's visit to Lebanon and Syria last week, like a similar visit several months ago, greatly angered US officials and prominent American commentators. In addition to meeting with a Syrian regime that Washington is trying to isolate, Carter made a point of sitting down with Hamas and requesting an audience with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah refused the meeting. Carter insists that Hamas and Hizballah are powerful and legitimate players on the Middle East stage that must be engaged in dialogue, while his critics say it is because of people like Carter that groups like Hamas gain legitimacy and become impossible to defeat. He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

28th December 2008, 07:05 AM	#2
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,278	Are all writers for that website illiterate? Or just Ryan Jones? Is that a requirement for the job? I can imagine really, really, really stupid people all over the world reading that article and believing it. The more intelligent will then read the article it points to (the Carter website) and then laughing at how stupid and illiterate Ryan Jones is! Of course, there will still be some incredibly stupid people who think it says what Ryan Jones says it says. The super intelligent among us will howl with laughter over how stupid these people are. Thanks for posting this satirical example of how stupid people really can be!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

28th December 2008, 07:25 AM	#3
BirdStrike Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 448	Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad. I think a designated international terrorist organization should change it's spots before ex-presidents give them political legitimacy. Not just their suits. But that is just my opinion.
	__________________ "God is a drunken college freshman from some alien race, and we're his science fair project. We got third place."

28th December 2008, 12:01 PM	#7
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,329	Originally Posted by ravdin From Carter's website: Emphasis mine. That seems like a euphemism for ransom negotiation to me. Why call it an euphemism? It is ransom negotiation. But what's bad about that? It's done routinely. The German government mediated in getting the release of (the bodies of) the two Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah. However, the "Israel Today" article changed it into Quote: he advised Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on what price to demand for hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit which implies that Carter took a partisan stance in this. That's the dirty spin on it.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

28th December 2008, 12:08 PM	#8
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.) Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

28th December 2008, 09:55 AM	#4
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt.

28th December 2008, 11:16 AM	#5
Bob Blaylock Forklift Operator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: N38°35' W121°29' Posts: 3,013	Originally Posted by BirdStrike Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad. Carter has always seemed to be devoted to a naïve belief that even the most evil terrorists in the world would turn and be nice to us if only we'd meet with them and understand them and try to negotiate with them. It never worked when he was President, and it hasn't worked in any of his attempts since then, but he seems to remain convinced that if he keeps on trying, eventually it will work. I therefore see it as unsurprising and unremarkable that he might now be meeting with Hamas, and trying to convince them to “play nice”. For this, I can't fault him for anything more than the same naïve idealism that he has always had. If, however, he has advised them, as the article claims, on what ransom to ask for a hostage, then that's another matter. If this claim is true, then he has crossed the line from merely meeting and negotiating, to being a willing accomplice. Perhaps it's a bit over the top to call him a “terrorist”, for such as this, but it certainly constitutes a serious betrayal.

28th December 2008, 11:48 AM	#6
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock If, however, he has advised them, as the article claims, on what ransom to ask for a hostage, then that's another matter. If this claim is true, then he has crossed the line from merely meeting and negotiating, to being a willing accomplice. Perhaps it's a bit over the top to call him a “terrorist”, for such as this, but it certainly constitutes a serious betrayal. From Carter's website: Quote: We discussed items on my agenda that included an extension of the ceasefire in Gaza, life there under the Israeli sanctions, the Arab peace initiative, reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the future of Palestinian leadership and elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit. Emphasis mine. That seems like a euphemism for ransom negotiation to me.

28th December 2008, 12:11 PM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by ravdin I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt. That the local terrorist leaders are more interested in securing power and wealth than they are of the surface arguments they use for the masses has a lot more explanatory power than that they are leading some kind of freedom movement.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

28th December 2008, 12:19 PM	#10
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,329	Originally Posted by Doctor Evil The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.) Fair enough. As far as I'm aware, he isn't accepted by Hamas either as mediator. But that doesn't mean he can't try to do so? I'm pretty sure there have been other mediators in the past who started out without being recognized by one or both sides. The various (failed) initiatives for an Israeli-Syrian peace come to mind. Originally Posted by Doctor Evil Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides. You're conflating two issues. It sounds as if you say that anyone who tries to mediate without recognition as such, must be by default a traitor to your favorite side.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

28th December 2008, 12:28 PM	#11
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist. You should watch who you call a "terrorist". Someone might get the obviously false impression that you label anyone who you disagree with, a terrorist. Wouldn't that be a shame? There is nothing wrong with anyone seeking a peaceful outcome to any situation. Right Abdul?

28th December 2008, 12:37 PM	#12
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	Originally Posted by ddt You're conflating two issues. It sounds as if you say that anyone who tries to mediate without recognition as such, must be by default a traitor to your favorite side. Not really. It sounds as if I suspect that Carter favours one side. Maybe this has to do with his past actions and writings. I would not assume the same for others. Still, several uncoordinated mediators are more likely to harm then help. To get such deals both sides have to compromise on things they do not really want to. This is less likely to happen if some other mediator appears and offer one of the sides a better deal.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

28th December 2008, 12:44 PM	#13
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals. Who did Carter kill...and what goal is he trying to achieve?

28th December 2008, 05:56 PM	#14
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Originally Posted by parky76 Someone might get the obviously false impression that you label anyone who you disagree with, a terrorist. Wouldn't that be a shame? Meaning you don't know me very well. Quote: There is nothing wrong with anyone seeking a peaceful outcome to any situation. Right Abdul? Define "peaceful outcome".
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

28th December 2008, 05:58 PM	#15
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Originally Posted by parky76 A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals. Who did Carter kill...and what goal is he trying to achieve? Accessory after the fact, if the story is true. If the story is not true, then only an apologist and propagandist for mass murder.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

28th December 2008, 06:02 PM	#16
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred Not a sympathizer. Not an apologist. Not a propagandist. A terrorist. Jimmy Carter proudly becomes Hamas advisor Israel Today He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist. It looks like you've been playing "chinese whispers".
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

28th December 2008, 06:09 PM	#17
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	What the Hey...the story was plausable enough to get Abduls hormones pumping....
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

28th December 2008, 06:10 PM	#18
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,677	If the article is true, Carter has given Hamas a huge propaganda boost if nothing else. He is a fool.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

28th December 2008, 06:17 PM	#19
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92	Originally Posted by lionking If the article is true, Carter has given Hamas a huge propaganda boost if nothing else. He is a fool. If the article Isn't true, Carter is still a gullible fool. Nothing has changed.
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92	__________________ "The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance." Robert A. Heinlein

28th December 2008, 09:56 PM	#20
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	Perhaps Carter honestly believes he is helping to alleviate the nearly impossible situation. However, the latest round of rocket attacks is only just another in a long line of total failures on the part of the Palestinians to "police themselves." One has to wonder how these groups are still able to receive thousands and thousands of the ubiquitous 107mm "Katyusha" rockets that are continually launched into Israeli population centers. There doesn't seem to be any real motivation for HAMAS or whoever purports to be in charge of the Palestinians to identify and hold responsible the individuals who are launching the ordnance into Israel. Doesn't Mr. Carter's presence there seem to imply at face value that he represents the United States in this matter? Last time I checked we don't negotiate with terrorists, even on behalf of another sovreign state. Did something change since Entebbe, or are the Israelis now negotiating with terror groups now?
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

29th December 2008, 07:18 AM	#21
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts Perhaps Carter honestly believes he is helping to alleviate the nearly impossible situation. However, the latest round of rocket attacks is only just another in a long line of total failures on the part of the Palestinians to "police themselves." One has to wonder how these groups are still able to receive thousands and thousands of the ubiquitous 107mm "Katyusha" rockets that are continually launched into Israeli population centers. There doesn't seem to be any real motivation for HAMAS or whoever purports to be in charge of the Palestinians to identify and hold responsible the individuals who are launching the ordnance into Israel. Doesn't Mr. Carter's presence there seem to imply at face value that he represents the United States in this matter? Last time I checked we don't negotiate with terrorists, even on behalf of another sovreign state. Did something change since Entebbe, or are the Israelis now negotiating with terror groups now? Israeli politicians keep making the claim that they don't negotiate with terrorists, but it's not true. In July of this year, Israel negotiated a deal with Hezbollah where prisoners were exchanged for the bodies of dead Israeli soldiers. This was just one of many such deals .

29th December 2008, 08:02 AM	#22
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred Accessory after the fact, if the story is true. If the story is not true, then only an apologist and propagandist for mass murder. give him a break. He's just trying to live up to that Nobel prize he shared a couple of decades ago. What was that for again?

29th December 2008, 09:18 AM	#23
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by Rob Lister give him a break. He's just trying to live up to that Nobel prize he shared a couple of decades ago. What was that for again? Yo Abdul, I talkin' to you bitch!

29th December 2008, 09:27 AM	#24
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	From another thread, Gaza Strip is about one tenth the size of Harris County Texas, with a quarter of the population. Let's see: if people in Harris County were launching rockets into Galveston County, how long do you think it would be before the officials in Harris County got down to brass tacks and did something about it? Hmmmmmm? Two years? I think not. President Carter ... not sure what he thinks he can achieve. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

31st December 2008, 08:10 AM	#25
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock Carter has always seemed to be devoted to a naïve belief that even the most evil terrorists in the world would turn and be nice to us if only we'd meet with them and understand them and try to negotiate with them. It never worked when he was President, and it hasn't worked in any of his attempts since then, but he seems to remain convinced that if he keeps on trying, eventually it will work. I am fairly certain Carter actually believes that it has worked.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178

31st December 2008, 08:53 AM	#26
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Mark6 I am fairly certain Carter actually believes that it has worked. The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked.

31st December 2008, 09:35 AM	#27
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor From another thread, Gaza Strip is about one tenth the size of Harris County Texas, with a quarter of the population. Let's see: if people in Harris County were launching rockets into Galveston County, how long do you think it would be before the officials in Harris County got down to brass tacks and did something about it? Hmmmmmm? Two years? I think not. President Carter ... not sure what he thinks he can achieve. DR I live in Harris county. While some comparisons between Gaza and Harris county might be valid, I think there is a slight (enormous) difference in the magnitude of chaos, poverty, and inept government between the two (mind you, I live in the third ward). Not a good comparison. Daredelvis

31st December 2008, 10:16 AM	#28
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Originally Posted by Kestrel The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked. Yes, there is that.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178

31st December 2008, 10:26 AM	#29
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	That may have something to do with the PIRA wanting out of the blowing up stuff business after 9/11.
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

31st December 2008, 12:10 PM	#30
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,536	Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts That may have something to do with the PIRA wanting out of the blowing up stuff business after 9/11. Nah, the peace process had been going on since the mid-90s. Hell, the Provos signed off on the GFA in 1998, three full years before 9/11.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich Last edited by Cleon; 31st December 2008 at 12:12 PM.

31st December 2008, 08:38 PM	#31
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	Maybe they should send Gerry Adams down there to negotiate.
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

31st December 2008, 11:09 PM	#32
littlehulkster Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 428	Originally Posted by Kestrel The negotiated settlements in Northern Ireland seem to have worked. The negotiated settlement between the Zapatistas and Mexican government has worked remarkably well, too. Once you realize that terrorists just might have a reason behind why they're doing what they're doing instead of just assuming they woke up and decided to blow something up, you can actually make a remarkable amount of progress with minimal bloodshed.

1st January 2009, 01:50 AM	#33
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by parky76 A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals. ? and/or provides material, assistance/protection for those so acting. Giving any advice (other than "crawl off and die" OR "do you understand, really understand, what fabs can do to you?" and equivalent) that helps terrorists is conspiracy with them. Note, at this point I am not calling Carter a terrorist - but, if he did advise Hamas on what to get for a prisoner (who I must assume they will kill as previously happened prior to returning). Oh, as to returning prisoners dead, I fully support IDF returning prisoners from a thousand feet up as an appropriate response.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

1st January 2009, 02:04 AM	#34
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	I don't think Carter is a terrorist. He simply is a naive fool, who thinks that if he'll be nice to people like Mashaal, and understand him, Mashaal will somehow become reasonable. Advising Mashaal is doing the man a small favor, in order to turn him around, make him "less extremist". The problem is that Carter is so far gone in his dementia that he moved from "understanding" to "helping out" in small, symbolic ways. If Mashaal had asked, as a personal favor of one freedom-loving man to another, that Carter use his diplomatic immunity and status as an ex-US president to help Mashaal smuggle some rockets into Gaza, Carter would do it.

1st January 2009, 07:30 AM	#35
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Skeptic I don't think Carter is a terrorist. He simply is a naive fool, who thinks that if he'll be nice to people like Mashaal, and understand him, Mashaal will somehow become reasonable. Advising Mashaal is doing the man a small favor, in order to turn him around, make him "less extremist". The problem is that Carter is so far gone in his dementia that he moved from "understanding" to "helping out" in small, symbolic ways. If Mashaal had asked, as a personal favor of one freedom-loving man to another, that Carter use his diplomatic immunity and status as an ex-US president to help Mashaal smuggle some rockets into Gaza, Carter would do it. You called Carter a "naive fool" and then claimed he has dementia. As a followup, you made an unsupported claimed that Carter would smuggle weapons to a terrorist. Argument by insult may pass for reason at your local bar, but it's not appropriate on a skeptics forum. Can you give it another try using documented facts and valid logic?
	Last edited by Kestrel; 1st January 2009 at 07:34 AM.