• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Jimmy Carter to meet with the leader of Hamas??

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
So Jimmy Carter may visit with the leader of Hamas when he goes to Syria.

It is like the Democrats don't want to win in the fall.

Why this is a problem for Democrats.
It re-enforces the fact that Democrats aren't serious when it comes to fighting terrorism.

More importantly it will force Obama to either publicly criticize Carter or it will re-enforce the anti-Israeli problem that Obama already faces.

If Obama is seen as being anti-Israel it could cost the Democrats the Jewish vote and without the Jewish vote the Dems may have no chance when it comes to Florida (Where McCain already leads by 8 points)

Anyway... here the Chicagotribune's view on Carter
link
Former President Jimmy Carter is accustomed to meeting world leaders and beaming his famous smile while getting his photo snapped with them. He may be in for a different kind of visit in Damascus next week. Carter is reported to have scheduled a meeting with Khaled Mashaal, the political leader of Hamas. Hamas says he's coming; the Atlanta-based Carter Center didn't confirm that, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

Mashaal isn't fond of photo ops, or even appearing in public, ever since he survived an Israeli assassination attempt several years back. (And there was the time in 2006 when Israeli warplanes buzzed the presidential palace in Syria as a protest for allowing Mashaal a safe haven.)

We presume the former president knows all about Mashaal. Just in case, however, we'd like to remind him of the Hamas leader's résumé, the better to be prepared for the possible tete-a-tete.

Mashaal is a terrorist leader. He's accused by Israeli officials of ordering the 2006 abduction of an Israeli soldier, triggering Israel's incursion into Gaza. At the time, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton urged Syria to arrest him and shut down Hamas headquarters in Damascus.

Over the years, Mashaal has claimed responsibility for many of Hamas' suicide bomb attacks in Israel. He leads an organization that praised as "heroic" Palestinian terrorists who crossed into Israel and killed two civilians at a fuel depot on Wednesday. Hamas allows?or instigates?the continuing barrage of rockets into Israel, taking every opportunity to disrupt peace negotiations.

Mashaal could play an important role in the current peace talks if Hamas would renounce violence, embrace previous agreements with Israel and recognize the Jewish state. It's a very low bar to clear with a profound return?a Palestinian state. But it's still too high for Hamas, a group that is sworn to destroy Israel.

Carter hasn't said publicly why he may be going. Maybe the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize laureate is convinced he can turn Mashaal into a peacenik. He better talk fast: Hamas is undertaking the most significant military buildup in its history, according to recent reports.

Or maybe Carter can't resist a public and obvious rebuke to the Bush administration's policy of isolating and weakening Hamas.

Mashaal and his cronies are overseeing the descent of Gaza into further violence, misery and hopelessness, all because they can't envision a Middle East where Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace.

Can a Nobel be revoked?
5/9/09 -- Locked to preserve evidence of the OP lying about a moderator in a PFI thread.

Perknose
Senior AT Mod[/b]
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The only thing this reinforces is that the OP is delusional. So Jimmy will talk, there may be a small ripple, then we will all wake back up to the fact that GWB is still President, and would ignore Jesus Christ himself if he was in the Hamas bunch.

Which will also mean GWB&co will make no progress because he refuses to listen, then we will have an election on 11/4/2008, and the dems will probably win on GWB&co's failure. And what Jimmy Carter did will have almost nothing to do with the election.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only thing this reinforces is that the OP is delusional. So Jimmy will talk, there may be a small ripple, then we will all wake back up to the fact that GWB is still President, and would ignore Jesus Christ himself if he was in the Hamas bunch.

Which will also mean GWB&co will make no progress because he refuses to listen, then we will have an election on 11/4/2008, and the dems will probably win on GWB&co's failure. And what Jimmy Carter did will have almost nothing to do with the election.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,710
20,070
136
Yeah, why talk to the leaders of movements we oppose!? We should be killing them! Talking is for weak little girls who aren't serious about fighting terrorism. A far better strategy is to stonewall them, and pretend they don't exist. This is why GWB's diplomacy in the region has been so excellent the last 7 years.

EDIT: Oh, and you can probably keep the electoral prognostication to yourself man... I distinctly remember you predicting the Republicans retaining control of both houses of Congress just before they got demolished in the midterms.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
That is a big jump from Mr Carter talking to someone to the Democrats not being serious about terrorism.

Isn't Mr Carter a private citizen? Will he be breaking the law?

Is Mr Carter running for a political office?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Carter is irrelevant. He's a disgruntled old man.

I really don't see his escapades as having an effect one way or the other. No one's paying any attention to the old peanut farmer.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well, we could look it the other way. Jimmy Carter the greedy. Here he was, the only recent American holder of a Nobel peace prize until that rascal Al Gore upstaged him. And now the only way back is to get back the lead is to win another Nobel Peace prize so he can get back into the lead with a two to one score.

In related news, GWB&co. continues to pile up a huge lead, and is the consensus favorite to win the Nobel Warmonger prize. And no one in the GWB administration has quite woken up to the fact that there is no such Nobel prize awarded for warmongering. So there will be no trip to shake the hand of the king or get that War prize cash award, but it may win GWB a future all expenses paid trip to the Hague.

As for non Prof John, he is indeed scraping the bottom of the barrel to figure out some reason, any reason, why the Republican can somehow win the election of 08. But then again, its said that drowning men clutch at straws.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Carter is irrelevant. He's a disgruntled old man.

I really don't see his escapades as having an effect one way or the other. No one's paying any attention to the old peanut farmer.
Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As CADsortaGuy notes---Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.

Tell that to Ronald Reagan who was promising the Iranians something behind Carters back back in the hostage crisis days. Later on Ronald Reagan admitted that he was really selling arms to terrorists and could no longer deny that fact to his own mind.

And since Carter is not running for anything, he has nothing but his own ear to negotiate with. But if GWB&co and McCain will not listen, its nice to see someone is willing to listen. Or do we just think Hamas does not have even one single legitimate grievance and that GWB&co is 101% perfect.

Answering those type questions with a simple answer does indeed take a mind with highly subjective selective memories.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As CADsortaGuy notes---Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.

Tell that to Ronald Reagan who was promising the Iranians something behind Carters back back in the hostage crisis days. Later on Ronald Reagan admitted that he was really selling arms to terrorists and could no longer deny that fact to his own mind.

And since Carter is not running for anything, he has nothing but his own ear to negotiate with. But if GWB&co and McCain will not listen, its nice to see someone is willing to listen. Or do we just think Hamas does not have even one single legitimate grievance and that GWB&co is 101% perfect.

Answering those type questions with a simple answer does indeed take a mind with highly subjective selective memories.

So you think it's alright for him to meddle just because he's not running for anything? It's not. The state dept handles these things - not some washed up Jew-hater. ;)

Oh, and I thought you people didn't like cowboys? This little stunt seems a bit cowboyish to me...;)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,652
3,202
126
Carter is merely the personification of the democrat?s agenda. Sitting down and having a cup of joe with terrorists. Patting violence Islamic supremacism on the back and saying "good work fellas".
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Lets see---Jaskalas says---Carter is merely the personification of the democrat?s agenda.

And failure is the personification of the GOP agenda. In some ways we can look at terrorism as the politics of the powerless.
And when the politics of the powerful is the total exploitation of the powerless, one gets more terrorism no matter how many wars on terrorism are declared.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, why talk to the leaders of movements we oppose!? We should be killing them! Talking is for weak little girls who aren't serious about fighting terrorism. A far better strategy is to stonewall them, and pretend they don't exist. This is why GWB's diplomacy in the region has been so excellent the last 7 years.

EDIT: Oh, and you can probably keep the electoral prognostication to yourself man... I distinctly remember you predicting the Republicans retaining control of both houses of Congress just before they got demolished in the midterms.
So if Bin Laden called up Carter and offered to meet with him you wouldn't have a problem with it?

This guy is a leader of a terrorist movement whose goal is eliminate the state of Israel. Carter meeting with him is not going to sit well with American Jewish leaders and if Obama refuses to comment on the meeting then it re-enforces the view that Obama is not a friend of the Jewish community.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.
Oh, I agree. I was just speaking as to how it may affect the political landscape, not the logistical aspect of it.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.
Oh, I agree. I was just speaking as to how it may affect the political landscape, not the logistical aspect of it.
Yeah, I understand what you were saying. I was expanding on it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,652
3,202
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So if Bin Laden called up Carter and offered to meet with him you wouldn't have a problem with it?

This guy is a leader of a terrorist movement whose goal is eliminate the state of Israel. Carter meeting with him is not going to sit well with American Jewish leaders and if Obama refuses to comment on the meeting then it re-enforces the view that Obama is not a friend of the Jewish community.
Condemning all of us who speak out against Islamic terrorism and patting the terrorists on the back doesn't just make them "not a friend of the Jewish community" but an opponent of all of western civilization.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see---Jaskalas says---Carter is merely the personification of the democrat?s agenda.

And failure is the personification of the GOP agenda. In some ways we can look at terrorism as the politics of the powerless.
And when the politics of the powerful is the total exploitation of the powerless, one gets more terrorism no matter how many wars on terrorism are declared.
Politics of the powerless. Yes, terrorism is a stratagem of the weak in warfare. Your argument is the legitimacy argument. In which case war needs to be declared in response and the opponents killed. Their towns and villages raised to the ground until they surrender hostilities. Until they cease fire and surrender. That is how any legitimate opponent in war in handled.

Bush?s ?war on terror? lacks several critical elements and contains other very stupid elements. We understand he is a failure. You?re merely jumping on that with both feet to bolster your party?s agenda for surrendering in the face of any hostility.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Where is talking the process of surrender? Talking is hopefully the process of removing grievances on both sides.

But not talking is usually the process of starting wars. We better think long and hard before we declare war on 1.4 billion Muslims when 1.39999999999 billion of them were never hostile to us in the first place.

And to put it as bluntly as possible, I would have no problem with Jimmy Carter talking to Ossama Bin Laden, I may not think any such talks would be productive, but what can it hurt? After all, GWB has admitted he no longer trying to find Ossama and no longer cares which means Al-Quida is still danger, and if Carter could get Ossama to be less likely to attack us again, it would be a help.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Where is talking the process of surrender? Talking is hopefully the process of removing grievances on both sides.

But not talking is usually the process of starting wars. We better think long and hard before we declare war on 1.4 billion Muslims when 1.39999999999 billion of them were never hostile to us in the first place.

And to put it as bluntly as possible, I would have no problem with Jimmy Carter talking to Ossama Bin Laden, I may not think any such talks would be productive, but what can it hurt? After all, GWB has admitted he no longer trying to find Ossama and no longer cares which means Al-Quida is still danger, and if Carter could get Ossama to be less likely to attack us again, it would be a help.
Lemon... I want you dead. Maybe you can send your mom or dad over and we can talk about removing my main grievance, your life. :roll: (That was an analogy. While I find lemon highly annoying I don't wish him or anyone else on this forum dead. Sadly the leaders of Hamas do not feel the same way and as long as they continue to chat 'death to Israel' I don't see what can come from meeting their leaders.)

As long as my (Hamas) goal is your (Israel) death I don't think there is a whole lot we can talk about. You seem to miss that point.


As the OP-ED states all Hamas and the other radicals have to do is come out and support a two state solution and they would be well on their way to getting a real Palestinian state.

Your 'Lemon I want you dead' comment is going to cost you a month off. While many of us have differing views, we will treat each other with respect while discussin them. Your comment is so over the top, and given your existing moderation notes, be happy you're being allowed to return.

Anandtech Moderator - bsobel


---

We cannot have members posting messages that can be perceived on their face as a death wish. There are too many ways to add some tag or indication that your words are intended to make a point other than a direct wish for the death of another member.

If you think you have something to say, please think a little longer about how you say it in the context of a very large open forum.

Your account is unlocked.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,489
13,499
136
From the ever spinning PJ-

As the OP-ED states all Hamas and the other radicals have to do is come out and support a two state solution and they would be well on their way to getting a real Palestinian state.
Really? They'd get their own version of Apartheid, their own little bantustan, their own little version of the pre-holocaust Warsaw Ghetto?

How nice. i don't suppose they'd be able to feed themselves off the postage-stamp bits of urban areas, rocky hilltops and barren desert that the Israelis intend to leave them? That they'll ever be allowed to tend to their own National Defense?

The problem with a two state solution is that it's like splitting up the livestock when a farm partnership dissolves- there are only two animals, one horse and one rabbit, and the Israelis represent giving the palestinians the rabbit as infinitely fair...
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Jimmy Carter may visit with the leader of Hamas when he goes to Syria.

It is like the Democrats don't want to win in the fall.

Why this is a problem for Democrats.
It re-enforces the fact that Democrats aren't serious when it comes to fighting terrorism.

More importantly it will force Obama to either publicly criticize Carter or it will re-enforce the anti-Israeli problem that Obama already faces.

If Obama is seen as being anti-Israel it could cost the Democrats the Jewish vote and without the Jewish vote the Dems may have no chance when it comes to Florida (Where McCain already leads by 8 points)
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only thing this reinforces is that the OP is delusional. So Jimmy will talk, there may be a small ripple, then we will all wake back up to the fact that GWB is still President, and would ignore Jesus Christ himself if he was in the Hamas bunch.

Which will also mean GWB&co will make no progress because he refuses to listen, then we will have an election on 11/4/2008, and the dems will probably win on GWB&co's failure. And what Jimmy Carter did will have almost nothing to do with the election.
QFT!

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Except that he shouldn't be acting as America's representative. The state dept should be handling any meetings - not Carter.
It's beyond presumptuous of you to say Carter is acting as "America's representative" and just as presumptuous of PJ imply that Carter speaks for the Democratic Party. At this point in his life, Carter is his own voice and force for peace, and he's proven that he's willing to disagree publicly with Republicans and Democratsthose who oppose engaging in the simple act of speaking with our presumed or perceived enemies.

He may have a point. Last time I checked, bombs were still far more deadly than words. :thumbsup: :sun:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the ever spinning PJ-

As the OP-ED states all Hamas and the other radicals have to do is come out and support a two state solution and they would be well on their way to getting a real Palestinian state.
Really? They'd get their own version of Apartheid, their own little bantustan, their own little version of the pre-holocaust Warsaw Ghetto?

How nice. i don't suppose they'd be able to feed themselves off the postage-stamp bits of urban areas, rocky hilltops and barren desert that the Israelis intend to leave them? That they'll ever be allowed to tend to their own National Defense?

The problem with a two state solution is that it's like splitting up the livestock when a farm partnership dissolves- there are only two animals, one horse and one rabbit, and the Israelis represent giving the palestinians the rabbit as infinitely fair...
So what is your solution?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,710
20,070
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, why talk to the leaders of movements we oppose!? We should be killing them! Talking is for weak little girls who aren't serious about fighting terrorism. A far better strategy is to stonewall them, and pretend they don't exist. This is why GWB's diplomacy in the region has been so excellent the last 7 years.

EDIT: Oh, and you can probably keep the electoral prognostication to yourself man... I distinctly remember you predicting the Republicans retaining control of both houses of Congress just before they got demolished in the midterms.
So if Bin Laden called up Carter and offered to meet with him you wouldn't have a problem with it?

This guy is a leader of a terrorist movement whose goal is eliminate the state of Israel. Carter meeting with him is not going to sit well with American Jewish leaders and if Obama refuses to comment on the meeting then it re-enforces the view that Obama is not a friend of the Jewish community.
Meeting with Bin Laden would be amazing, why wouldn't that make me happy? We could maybe negotiate the terms for his surrender in exchange for only locking him up for life instead of the death penalty. I would take that in a second over what we currently have. Just because you meet with someone doesn't mean that you take on their position.

Hamas is also the elected government of the palestinian territories. Ignoring them and pretending they don't exist is childish and stupid. Other countries don't accept Israel's right to exist either, should we just ignore them too? This is the diplomacy of Bush, and we have all seen how useless it is.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Where is talking the process of surrender? Talking is hopefully the process of removing grievances on both sides.

But not talking is usually the process of starting wars. We better think long and hard before we declare war on 1.4 billion Muslims when 1.39999999999 billion of them were never hostile to us in the first place.

And to put it as bluntly as possible, I would have no problem with Jimmy Carter talking to Ossama Bin Laden, I may not think any such talks would be productive, but what can it hurt? After all, GWB has admitted he no longer trying to find Ossama and no longer cares which means Al-Quida is still danger, and if Carter could get Ossama to be less likely to attack us again, it would be a help.
Lemon... I want you dead. Maybe you can send your mom or dad over and we can talk about removing my main grievance, your life. :roll:

As long as my (Hamas) goal is your (Israel) death I don't think there is a whole lot we can talk about. You seem to miss that point.


As the OP-ED states all Hamas and the other radicals have to do is come out and support a two state solution and they would be well on their way to getting a real Palestinian state.
Well that would seem to be a standoff position then. If we're totally unwilling to try diplomacy with Hamas because THEY don't want to try diplomacy with Israel, the only solution is that one side completely wipes out the other. OR someone has to man up and be the first to suggest a non-violent solution to the problem. Whatever your views on who's right or wrong, that doesn't help in terms of actually solving the problem.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Non Prof John says---Lemon... I want you dead. Maybe you can send your mom or dad over and we can talk about removing my main grievance, your life.

As long as my (Hamas) goal is your (Israel) death I don't think there is a whole lot we can talk about. You seem to miss that point.


Well we know the PJ agenda is---he wants to kill me. And after he kills me there will still be a pile of other people to kill. Maybe its time to ask PJ's Mum and Dad where they went wrong. And where in PJ's demented mind does he think I want Israel dead?? When what I do believe in is a mutual compromise because a might makes right strategy only keeps a now 60 year old conflict going and going and going.

As Rainsford points out, the end game for a give Israel everything ultimately will be put to the rest of the world. The greatest Good for the greatest number, 6 million jews or 200 million Arabs have to be killed. Pick one or the other, because one group has got to go may be where its going.

But its not where I think it should be going, and killing me will not change a single thing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY