Carter to meet with, give legitmacy to Hamas leader in Syria

[Nitrogen]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

Hamas is using Will Rogers' definition of diplomacy.

That diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

[roo_ster]

[cassandrasdaddy]That's mighty white of them.[/cassandrasdaddy]

[yesitsloaded]

I hate to even think along these lines, but if Isreal decided one day to walk across the border into Gaza and wipe out every man in Hamas, what would actually happen to them? They have nukes and a twitchy trigger finger. The UN wouldn't touch it, the US and the EU would verbally say "crap that wasn't very nice", and the arab nations would wave their fists in the air but not do anything because of said nukes. 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?

[De Selby]

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."

[Fjolnirsson]

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.

[De Selby]

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. 

[Fjolnirsson]

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.

[De Selby]

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. 

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? 

[Fjolnirsson]

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.

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.

[Dntsycnt]

Threatening to nuke them both is pointless.  They would know we wouldn't do it because we wouldn't do it.  Do you really think the world would jump onto that bandwagon?  "Just nuke a bunch of innocent people, we'll pretend we didn't see it."

Nuking innocent people- always the best solution.

[Fjolnirsson]

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. 

[yesitsloaded]

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.

[yesitsloaded]

According to the great Wiki.

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

[Scout26]

But it's not genocide if you only "Drive them into the sea" ??

[Manedwolf]

But it's not genocide if you only "Drive them into the sea" ??

Ask Teddy Kennedy.

Also, Carter just accused Rice of lying.

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."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870477802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[De Selby]

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?

[De Selby]

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.

[yesitsloaded]

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)

[De Selby]

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.

[taurusowner]

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.