Post by: Manedwolf on April 09, 2008, 03:54:05 AM
Quote
Report: Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria
Tuesday , April 08, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
NEW YORK CITY
Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.
The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.
Deanna Congileo, Carters press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.
President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week, wrote Congileo. I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.
Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."
Some Carter critics called the latest reports typical of the ex-president.
Its about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does," said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. "To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part."
Im not surprised that Carter would do this, as he has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years, said Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a watchdog group.
Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.
I think this [visit] undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas, said Emerson. I think this encourages Europeans to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.
"When you put the prestige of a former president of the United States in a meeting with one of its terrorist leaders, youre giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had, said Bolton.
But Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a non-profit advocacy group, said Carter's efforts demonstrate he's a true partner in peace.
I think if true, this report would indicate that President Carter is willing to travel any road in search of peace, he said. I think President Carter would only undertake such a mission if he believed that something could be achieved in terms of peace and reconciliation in the region.
Hooper added that because of Carter's reputation among Palestinians he might be able to bring some pressure to bear.
Obviously President Carter has a great amount of credibility in the region because of his past efforts seeking peace internationally, Hooper said.
The Al-Hayat report stated that Carter would be traveling in his capacity as head of the Carter Center, and not in his capacity as a former president.
Thats a distinction thats absurd, said Emerson.
Maybe hell give up his pension, but hes always a former president, said Bolton.
Tuesday , April 08, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
NEW YORK CITY
Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.
The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.
Deanna Congileo, Carters press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.
President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week, wrote Congileo. I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.
Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."
Some Carter critics called the latest reports typical of the ex-president.
Its about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does," said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. "To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part."
Im not surprised that Carter would do this, as he has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years, said Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a watchdog group.
Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.
I think this [visit] undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas, said Emerson. I think this encourages Europeans to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.
"When you put the prestige of a former president of the United States in a meeting with one of its terrorist leaders, youre giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had, said Bolton.
But Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a non-profit advocacy group, said Carter's efforts demonstrate he's a true partner in peace.
I think if true, this report would indicate that President Carter is willing to travel any road in search of peace, he said. I think President Carter would only undertake such a mission if he believed that something could be achieved in terms of peace and reconciliation in the region.
Hooper added that because of Carter's reputation among Palestinians he might be able to bring some pressure to bear.
Obviously President Carter has a great amount of credibility in the region because of his past efforts seeking peace internationally, Hooper said.
The Al-Hayat report stated that Carter would be traveling in his capacity as head of the Carter Center, and not in his capacity as a former president.
Thats a distinction thats absurd, said Emerson.
Maybe hell give up his pension, but hes always a former president, said Bolton.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html
Post by: MrRezister on April 09, 2008, 04:53:12 AM
/stupidity
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that visits like this will convince the terrorists in the population that what they are doing is having a desirable effect. Way to go Carter, as usual.
Post by: johnster999 on April 09, 2008, 05:22:22 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 09, 2008, 05:25:31 AM
Post by: HankB on April 09, 2008, 05:25:44 AM
Seriously.
Post by: wmenorr67 on April 09, 2008, 05:26:50 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 09, 2008, 05:33:20 AM
Plus, can we rename the sub?
Post by: HankB on April 09, 2008, 06:35:52 AM
. . . He's such a naive fool that I have no doubt that he might babble something from an intelligence briefing to the Hamas leader over lunch and get some of our people killed as a result . . .
He's been out of office for decades now . . . why in the world should he even GET any more access to classified data?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 09, 2008, 06:39:10 AM
That's what I'd meant. I think he should be cut of from even that, because it's still stuff that people like the leader of Hamas shouldn't know. Nothing that an average citizen can't have. Period.
Post by: mtnbkr on April 09, 2008, 06:45:06 AM
I wouldn't expect he'd have any high-level clearances, (hope not!) but I'd wonder if, as a courtesy, he was still able to get the just-barely-classified Congressional intelligence briefings or such? How many people would give him a paper, the ones who still address him as "Mr. President" when he asks for it, thinking he's due some courtesy. I don't think he is.
That's what I'd meant. I think he should be cut of from even that, because it's still stuff that people like the leader of Hamas shouldn't know. Nothing that an average citizen can't have. Period.
That's what I'd meant. I think he should be cut of from even that, because it's still stuff that people like the leader of Hamas shouldn't know. Nothing that an average citizen can't have. Period.
Without knowing his current classification status, I would hope that folks in this position would remember that they don't just hand off classified info unless the recipient has the adequate clearance AND "need to know". I imagine one of those two points would eliminate Carter.
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on April 09, 2008, 06:47:48 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on April 09, 2008, 06:56:57 AM
And anyone that ever had a clearance there is a thing called a Non-disclosure Agreement that you sign when you read on and when you read off.
Post by: Scout26 on April 09, 2008, 11:38:43 AM
Post by: Angel Eyes on April 09, 2008, 12:16:50 PM
I could of sworn we traded this guy to North Korea back during the Clinton years....
We tried, but Dear Leader insisted we throw in Pamela Anderson as well.
Post by: roo_ster on April 09, 2008, 12:39:19 PM
I could of sworn we traded this guy to North Korea back during the Clinton years....
We tried, but Dear Leader insisted we throw in Pamela Anderson as well.
I think we would have come out on top on that deal. After all, who really cares about three big, fake boobs, anyways?
Post by: Monkeyleg on April 09, 2008, 12:41:52 PM
I don't think he needed to know anything even when he was the sitting president. We might be better off today if the pentagon had handled the Iranian hostage situation on its own.
Post by: charby on April 09, 2008, 12:56:25 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 09, 2008, 01:00:03 PM
Quote
Yay being used as a prop by a terrorist leader!
How is he being "used as a prop"?
It appears to me that Carter initiated any contact, in order to further his policy goals in the course of a Middle East tour. Any way you cut it, Hamas is a player and ignoring them is pointless.
Quote
an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.
Ah, the absurdity of the war on terra.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 09, 2008, 03:42:38 PM
It appears to me that Carter initiated any contact, in order to further his policy goals in the course of a Middle East tour.
Post by: jrfoxx on April 09, 2008, 03:52:42 PM
Quote
Useful idiot.
I think you made a typo...Quote
Useless idiot.
There.fixed it for you.
Why exactly to ex-presidents and congress critters feel the need to do these kinds of things? Isnt that what we have the State Deartment for?
These people either need to but out, and let the State Department do thier job, or we need to disband and/or defund them if they are so useless. If we dont need them, quit wasting my tax money on them. If we are keeping them, quit wasting my tax money letting congress criters overstep thier bounds (Carter not included here, as I REALLY hope this is coming out of HIS pocket, not mine...)
Post by: Nitrogen on April 09, 2008, 04:18:46 PM
I can hope.
Post by: wooderson on April 09, 2008, 04:20:45 PM
Quote
See, that's precisely the problem. Nothing good (for us) ever came of Jimmy Carter trying to further his policy goals.
Which may or may not be the case. But the fact that the man has policy goals and the means to pursue them - and that you or I disagree with him, or the conservative orthodoxy disagrees with him - doesn't make the man a prop, or a "useful idiot" (is there a lazier cliche going?).Post by: De Selby on April 09, 2008, 04:56:12 PM
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 09, 2008, 05:01:08 PM
Quote
See, that's precisely the problem. Nothing good (for us) ever came of Jimmy Carter trying to further his policy goals.
Which may or may not be the case. But the fact that the man has policy goals and the means to pursue them - and that you or I disagree with him, or the conservative orthodoxy disagrees with him - doesn't make the man a prop, or a "useful idiot" (is there a lazier cliche going?).The fact that he has policy goals and the means of pursuing them doesn't make him a useful idiot. It's the fact that he's Jimmy Carter, pursuing Jimmy Carter's particular policy goals, in Jimmy Carter's trademark incompetent fashion, which makes him a useful idiot.
Post by: Bigjake on April 09, 2008, 05:07:18 PM
How ironic-we all praise Israel for its intelligence genius even though its intelligence agencies gave Hamas the crucial funding and support it needed to get off the ground as a movement...http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2002/06/18/analysis_hamas_history_tied_to_israel/8272/
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
I figured you would show up to defend playing nice and talking with KNOWN TERRORISTS.
Post by: De Selby on April 09, 2008, 05:53:58 PM
How ironic-we all praise Israel for its intelligence genius even though its intelligence agencies gave Hamas the crucial funding and support it needed to get off the ground as a movement...http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2002/06/18/analysis_hamas_history_tied_to_israel/8272/
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
You figure lots of things when it comes to Muslims, it seems.
I figured you would show up to defend playing nice and talking with KNOWN TERRORISTS.
Post by: Bigjake on April 09, 2008, 06:01:32 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 09, 2008, 06:47:05 PM
Quote
It's the fact that he's Jimmy Carter, pursuing Jimmy Carter's particular policy goals, in Jimmy Carter's trademark incompetent fashion, which makes him a useful idiot.
If you're going to traffic in cliches, you should at least get them right.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 09, 2008, 07:20:40 PM
Quote
It's the fact that he's Jimmy Carter, pursuing Jimmy Carter's particular policy goals, in Jimmy Carter's trademark incompetent fashion, which makes him a useful idiot.
If you're going to traffic in cliches, you should at least get them right.Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 04:35:49 AM
How ironic-we all praise Israel for its intelligence genius even though its intelligence agencies gave Hamas the crucial funding and support it needed to get off the ground as a movement...http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2002/06/18/analysis_hamas_history_tied_to_israel/8272/
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
and now we're slamming Jimmy Carter for talking to them?
It's a backwards world where praise is showered on the party that gives money to and helps upstart the terrorist group, but a guy who obviously isn't going to do anything other than talk is the devil.
I figured you would show up to defend playing nice and talking with KNOWN TERRORISTS.
He always defends Hamas.
Whereas I think the only proper way to "meet" with the leader of Hamas would be to stuff a grenade in their pocket and push them out a window. Preferably one above a dumpster.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 10, 2008, 11:55:50 AM
You figure lots of things when it comes to Muslims, it seems.
And you seem to validate much of it. Go figure.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 10, 2008, 12:03:05 PM
? Anybody who's worried about him has too much time on their hands.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 12:05:16 PM
Al-Jazeera will run it as "Former American President Meets with Hamas Leader in Negotiation".
It lends legitimacy of statehood to a terrorist leader who deserves nothing more than to be shot on sight.
Post by: wooderson on April 10, 2008, 12:58:48 PM
Quote
Al-Jazeera will run it as "Former American President Meets with Hamas Leader in Negotiation".
Aside from "in negotiation" - what can Carter negotiate? at best he's playing a brokering role - what about this is untrue or requires "Al-Jazeera" spin. A former American President will indeed be meeting with Hamas. (assuming this happens, of course)Quote
It lends legitimacy of statehood to a terrorist leader who deserves nothing more than to be shot on sight.
Except that he's meeting with the leader of Hamas in a state where Hamas holds no power. Bit difficult to claim the "legitimacy of statehood" when you're in hiding from Israel.In any case - Hamas, thanks primarily to Israel, holds a de facto state in southern Lebanon and won't be going anywhere any time soon. Anything other than recognition of reality is absurd.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 10, 2008, 01:29:45 PM
NOBODY CARES what is said. The photo of the meeting and the confirmation that the meeting took place is legitimizing Hamas. Period.
That's all that'll be held up in Hamas rallies for the new throngs. "Even former American president recognizes the holy mission of Hamas!"
Post by: wooderson on April 10, 2008, 02:38:33 PM
Quote
Wooderson, you're just not getting it.
I 'get it,' y'all just can't help but switch arguments from post to post. Useful idiot! Tool of the terra-ists! Legitimizing terra-ism!
Quote
NOBODY CARES what is said. The photo of the meeting and the confirmation that the meeting took place is legitimizing Hamas. Period.
Hamas is "legitimized" by their de facto governmental presence (oh, and their ability to 'win' a land war against Israel). Period. They don't need a former President meeting with them to establish a base of power.To deny that Hamas is a player - to ignore them - is, again, an absurd denial of reality.
Quote
That's all that'll be held up in Hamas rallies for the new throngs. "Even former American president recognizes the holy mission of Hamas!"
Which "new throngs" would these be? Where is Hamas recruiting that they don't already enjoy popularity and control?Why would they use a former American president to make this argument? Are we popular among potential Islamist recruits in the Middle East or something?
Did the IRA argue that the US recognized its mission when we took a role in dealing with Northern Ireland?
You are, per usual, short on concrete arguments and details.
Post by: stevelyn on April 11, 2008, 03:01:53 AM
Trying to make up his failure as President.
Why? Because of Bush, he's no longer the worst president.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 15, 2008, 09:34:59 AM
Quote
The former president and his wife Rosalynn Carter laid a wreath on the tomb of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. The wreath bore the words: "President and Mrs Carter."
NOT PRESIDENT. NOT IN MY NAME.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iszjyHIDZedCkd2qwQKI_1_GrqvA
Maybe he could finish up by symbolically lighting off some Qassams aimed at Sderot?
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 16, 2008, 03:33:17 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 16, 2008, 04:42:11 PM
Post by: Waitone on April 16, 2008, 05:24:40 PM
I would have to rate Carter the absolute worst in my lifetime with no second place. The man was just awful.
Post by: LadySmith on April 17, 2008, 12:23:59 AM
Why did Fred have to go and crap out on us and leave us with the mayor of crazytown that is right on 90% and a loon on the other 10, a silver tongued totalitaran that has a crazy racist for a preacher, and a career politician that loves guns and freedom only when convenient, and a free speech restricting left leaning moderate in a republican suit.
I feel your pain. I'm considering a write-in vote for "None Of The Above."
Post by: Manedwolf on April 18, 2008, 06:38:59 AM
Quote
Rep. Myrick Calls for Former President Jimmy Carters Passport to be Revoked
(Washington, D.C.) Today, Rep. Sue Myrick (NC-9) called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to revoke former President Jimmy Carters passport. This is in response to the former President traveling to Syria to meet with Hamas, an organization officially designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Former President Carter has acted in contradiction of international agreements to isolate Hamas. He has acted in defiance of both United States policy and international policy. His actions reward terrorists, lend support, and provide legitimacy to their belief that violence will eventually get them what they want, said Rep. Myrick.
After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia) called on Hamas to renounce terror, recognize Israel and recognize the previous agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel as they seek an agreement to make peace. Hamas has categorically rejected these three conditions for more than two years.
Congress granted the Secretary of State the power to grant and verify passports. In 1981, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Haig v. Agee that the Secretary of State has the implied power to revoke passports as well (453 U.S. 280).
http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc09_myrick/041608carterpassport.html
Post by: Racehorse on April 18, 2008, 10:01:36 AM
Really, does anyone take him seriously?
Post by: longeyes on April 18, 2008, 02:04:35 PM
Post by: Archie on April 19, 2008, 06:41:10 AM
First is that former President Carter has no authority to meet with or discuss anything with a foreign power.
Second, he is a former President of the United States. Other nations see him still having some degree of authority or legitimacy in his conversations and announcements and actions - like honoring the late Yassir Arafat.
Third, anything he says out loud is not U. S. foreign policy. He is in the process of undercutting the position of the United States in international relations. I don't think he's doing so intentionally, but he should know better. At best he's goofy; at worst he's traitorous.
All you President Carter supporters consider this: If Senator Clinton or Obama is elected to the Presidency, how about President Bush going abroad and holding 'talks' with Israel, South Korea or Germany without direction, approval or authority from the then current administration?
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on April 20, 2008, 04:47:10 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 20, 2008, 05:51:35 PM
Quote
They may have a humanitarian branch that builds schools and gives out food, but the KKK has picnics too.
See, here's the thing:
The Hamas is the de-facto government of Gaza. They have all the trappings of a government laws, courts, publicly-owned amenities, army, police, the works.
We can't kill them all off without unacceptable civilian casualties and controversy.
So we have to talk to them.
Quote
Why did Fred have to go and crap out on us and leave us with the mayor of crazytown that is right on 90% and a loon on the other 10,
Because Fred never was really meaning to be a serious candidate. He was just playing one on TV. He never had what it took.
As for Ron Paul, it amazes me that people were so obsessed with the stuff they disagreed with foreign policy mostly, it seems - that they went and voted for guys that disagree with them 90% of the time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 20, 2008, 09:14:31 PM
Can we make Jimmy Carter an auxillary APS scapegoat?
Die in a fire.
Post by: grampster on April 21, 2008, 04:46:14 AM
Maybe it's already been said. I haven't read the whole thread. But how can Carter give legitimacy to anything when he doesn't have any himself?
Really, does anyone take him seriously?
Really, does anyone take him seriously?
Carter doesn't need any legitimacy when smart despots use him as a useful idiot to further the propagandizing and control of those in thrall to the despots.
Carter's enormous ego drives him because of his abject failure as President.
Years ago I changed my mind about that man. I thought he was a kind, generous man; just elevated beyond his abilities by time and circumstance. I haven't believed that about him anymore for many years.
Post by: Nitrogen on April 21, 2008, 06:06:57 AM
Apparently Carter says Hamas will consider allowing Israel to exist by a vote of the people.
How thoughtful of them.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 21, 2008, 06:09:05 AM
I heard the latest bit on this this morning on NPR.
Apparently Carter says Hamas will consider allowing Israel to exist by a vote of the people.
How thoughtful of them.
Apparently Carter says Hamas will consider allowing Israel to exist by a vote of the people.
How thoughtful of them.
Hamas is using Will Rogers' definition of diplomacy.
That diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
Post by: roo_ster on April 21, 2008, 11:41:23 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 21, 2008, 12:47:11 PM
Post by: De Selby on April 21, 2008, 06:24:52 PM
I mean really, why do they even put up with this junk? If a large group of people are set on killing you and attack you daily and you kill them, is it genocide just because they happen to all belong to the same ethnic group?
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a parody or a serious question.
It's hard to imagine that someone would have to ask if killing an entire ethnic group is "genocide" because he's cooked up some theory whereby "they all deserve it."
Post by: Fjolnirsson on April 21, 2008, 06:41:19 PM
I mean really, why do they even put up with this junk? If a large group of people are set on killing you and attack you daily and you kill them, is it genocide just because they happen to all belong to the same ethnic group?
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a parody or a serious question.
It's hard to imagine that someone would have to ask if killing an entire ethnic group is "genocide" because he's cooked up some theory whereby "they all deserve it."
Well then, what I'm about to say will likely cause you to strangle on your own tongue.
It's self-defense.
Simple. Not to say that Isreal/Palestine is self defense, but the situation described in limited terms above is not genocide, it is self defense. If someone tries to kill you, you have every right to try to kill them back.
Post by: De Selby on April 21, 2008, 06:53:23 PM
I mean really, why do they even put up with this junk? If a large group of people are set on killing you and attack you daily and you kill them, is it genocide just because they happen to all belong to the same ethnic group?
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a parody or a serious question.
It's hard to imagine that someone would have to ask if killing an entire ethnic group is "genocide" because he's cooked up some theory whereby "they all deserve it."
Well then, what I'm about to say will likely cause you to strangle on your own tongue.
It's self-defense.
Simple. Not to say that Isreal/Palestine is self defense, but the situation described in limited terms above is not genocide, it is self defense. If someone tries to kill you, you have every right to try to kill them back.
Okay, building gas chambers and running every man in a population through them because some men in that population committed crimes is not "self defense."
This is not "some one" being referred to-killing millions of people is not the same thing as killing one person holding a gun to your head.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on April 21, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
I mean really, why do they even put up with this junk? If a large group of people are set on killing you and attack you daily and you kill them, is it genocide just because they happen to all belong to the same ethnic group?
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a parody or a serious question.
It's hard to imagine that someone would have to ask if killing an entire ethnic group is "genocide" because he's cooked up some theory whereby "they all deserve it."
Well then, what I'm about to say will likely cause you to strangle on your own tongue.
It's self-defense.
Simple. Not to say that Isreal/Palestine is self defense, but the situation described in limited terms above is not genocide, it is self defense. If someone tries to kill you, you have every right to try to kill them back.
Okay, building gas chambers and running every man in a population through them because some men in that population committed crimes is not "self defense."
This is not "some one" being referred to-killing millions of people is not the same thing as killing one person holding a gun to your head.
I agree. Genocide implies a specific distinction of killing an entire group of people specifically for one trait, be it skin color or religion. If an entire people are bent on my destruction, I would feel no remorse in nuking them.
However, The Isreal/Palestine conflict goes beyond any attempt to unravel it. The only way peace will come to that region is for it to be imposed from outside, or for them to kill one another once and for all. As with all foreign policy, I take an "all or nothing" approach to the problem. The US needs to either stand aside and let them murder one another, or point missiles at both sides of the wall and let it be known that the next aggressive move from either of them results in destruction of both countries. Both sides have an equal amount of blood on their hands at this point.
Post by: De Selby on April 21, 2008, 07:03:27 PM
Quote
I agree. Genocide implies a specific distinction of killing an entire group of people specifically for one trait, be it skin color or religion. If an entire people are bent on my destruction, I would feel no remorse in nuking them.
That would be genocide-your beliefs about their intentions notwithstanding. You should read up on the Nazi propaganda used to justify this sort of thing; they claimed that Jews were out to get them and ruin their lives and enslave them.
Quote
However, The Isreal/Palestine conflict goes beyond any attempt to unravel it. The only way peace will come to that region is for it to be imposed from outside, or for them to kill one another once and for all. As with all foreign policy, I take an "all or nothing" approach to the problem.
See, and this is the problem-all the information available suggests that those who are actually involved in the conflict overwhelmingly do not support the "all or nothing" approach.
I see that you're taking the position that this threat of destruction should be applied equally to both sides, but really...what is the necessity for that here?
Post by: Fjolnirsson on April 21, 2008, 07:44:28 PM
Quote
See, and this is the problem-all the information available suggests that those who are actually involved in the conflict overwhelmingly do not support the "all or nothing" approach.
Here's the solution to that problem. If they are asking for help, they don't get to dictate(or rather, they shouldn't be allowed to) what form that help takes. If they want our military, we should be controlling it. If they ask for food, they don't get to bitch if we send rice and beans instead of filet mignon. See where I'm going? Personally, I'd rather we fix the problems here in the US before playing world police.
Quote
I see that you're taking the position that this threat of destruction should be applied equally to both sides, but really...what is the necessity for that here?
Simple, really. If we say we'll nuke the next one to put a foot wrong, you can bet there'll be plots to stage an attack from the other side. If we say we'll destroy them both, they'll both be working very hard to quell the psychos in their ranks. Once we've established that, the way is open for talks about who gets what land, with us playing the part of Solomon.
Post by: Dntsycnt on April 22, 2008, 04:19:24 AM
Nuking innocent people- always the best solution.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on April 22, 2008, 04:52:12 AM
Quote
Nuking innocent people- always the best solution.
Not at all. IMO, the best solution would be to leave folks to their own affairs, and keep our noses out of other folks business. Like anything else, we need to quit taking half measures.
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 23, 2008, 05:47:57 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 23, 2008, 05:53:38 AM
While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Post by: Scout26 on April 23, 2008, 09:38:06 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 23, 2008, 09:41:03 AM
But it's not genocide if you only "Drive them into the sea" ??
Ask Teddy Kennedy.
Also, Carter just accused Rice of lying.
Quote
Former US President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not tell the truth about warning him not to talk to Hamas, according to a Reuters report.
According to the US State Department, the former president was warned before he left the United States for his Middle East trip last week.
"We counseled President Carter against going to the region and particularly against having contact with Hamas," said Rice in Kuwait on Tuesday.
Responding to these claims, Reuters reported that the Carter center in Atlanta issued a statement saying "President Carter has the greatest respect for ... Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true."
According to the US State Department, the former president was warned before he left the United States for his Middle East trip last week.
"We counseled President Carter against going to the region and particularly against having contact with Hamas," said Rice in Kuwait on Tuesday.
Responding to these claims, Reuters reported that the Carter center in Atlanta issued a statement saying "President Carter has the greatest respect for ... Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870477802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 04:35:40 PM
But it's not genocide if you only "Drive them into the sea" ??
Are you serious? Who on this earth has claimed that such a thing would not be genocide?
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 04:37:50 PM
I was thinking along the lines of a "we had to nuke them to save them" parody. I think that it is uneccesary though. Shin Bet and Mossad are pretty good at killing terrorists softly in the night or killing them loudly in broad daylight. Now that I read the other posts it is an interesting question. If an entire ethnic group is actively out to kill you, is it genocide to wipe them out? I'm not talking about made up stuff like "Jews eat babys at night", more along the lines of the entire Chinese horde swarming over the border with guns kinda thing.
The people who support genocide always sincerely believe the allegations-it's immaterial to the matter, because any allegation against millions of people that yields the death penalty for all of them is going to be garbage from the beginning. If that many people were actually guilty of a crime warranting death, there'd be no one to carry out the sentence, because they'd all be dead.
Apparently the Shin Bet and the Mossad are not very good at killing terrorists, since they have killed about 10 times more people than the terrorists themselves have killed, yet they have not managed to put a dent in terrorism.
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 23, 2008, 04:41:22 PM
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
So the whole "mutual assured destruction" of the cold war was preplanned genocide if need be? The whole "don't F*** with us or we nuke your country did actually seem rather effective against China and Russia during the cold war. (It worked against the US too, remember the Cuban Missile Crisis anyone...anyone)
MAD is not "hey, we're going to strike first if you don't do what we want you to do." If that had been the policy, we would probably not be here today, because the Soviets could've (wisely) just taken their chances with the first strike advantage rather than risk being hit first by a superior American military machine.
The reason it worked was because we had a policy of "absolutely no nukes will be used unless nukes are launched by someone else first." That's why there hasn't been a nuke used since 1945. Any other policy, and I say this without a hint of hyperbole, very probably could've led to the destruction of the civilized world.
Post by: taurusowner on April 28, 2008, 02:50:16 AM
Quote
It appears to me that Carter initiated any contact, in order to further his policy goals in the course of a Middle East tour
Who TF does he think he is to even have "policy goals"?!? He's a washed up has been from decades past. He doesn't hold any real position. He doesn't speak for anyone but himself. He needs to go play some golf and let our current elected officials and their appointed State Dept handle relations with other nations. Your time was up long ago Jimmy. Now you're just in the way.