Jimmy Carter is a terrorist

[WildCat]

You know, if someone were confused as to what the IRA was, I could tell them. If someone was confused as to what evolution was, I could tell them. If someone was confused as to what neoconservative was, I could tell them.

The fact that you cannot tell me clearly speaks volumes...

Because frankly it's such a common term I'm having difficulty determining if you are serious or playing semantic games of some sort. I'm in no mood to play games.

But assuming it's the former, click here.

 

[Earthborn]

But how far would such negotiations get if the U.S. disputed Mexico's right to exist as a sovereign country, if the U.S. asserted that all the land known as Mexico was properly the U.S., and that everyone living in Mexico today should be killed?

No doubt such negotiations would become extremely difficult. But at the same time they would become extremely necessary. If Mexico wants to avoid the US invading and killing everyone, it will need to find something to offer the US that would decrease this desire.

 

[rwguinn]

Is anyone else as confused as GreyICE?

no

 

[rwguinn]

No doubt such negotiations would become extremely difficult. But at the same time they would become extremely necessary. If Mexico wants to avoid the US invading and killing everyone, it will need to find something to offer the US that would decrease this desire.

Therin lies the problem.
If the stated purpose of the US was that everyone in Mexico must die, there can be no negotiation.
The stated purpose is not negotiable, in this case. That is what "negotiations" between Israel and Hamas is up against.

 

[leonAzul]

we need to negotiate engage with people who believe stupid and hateful things.

fify

 

[shuttlt]

Engage is a better word than negotiate. I get the sense from negotiate that we are doing some horse trading and a deal is on the horizon. I'm more thinking of dialog that may form the basis for negotiation at some unspecified point in the future.

 

[WildCat]

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

.........

 

[shuttlt]

Look. I know you can provide evidence that Hamas are deeply unpleasant people. But what else are you offering? War without end? I fail to see how Jimmy Carter talking to Hamas does harm.

BPSCG said "Giving aid and comfort to terrorists is always actively harmful", well I don't see how Jimmy Carter was giving them aid, and comfort??? How many Hamas supporters would have turned round and gone home but for the sight of Jimmy Carter to rebuild their morale? Or do we still think he might be running guns for them?

Doesn't all the excitement in Gaza do more to help Hamas recruitment than a hundred chats with former Presidents?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Someone wiser than me once said that "diplomacy is war carried on with other means". I would add "nicer means". But it is a form of war all the same. As soon as both parties are able to negotiate in good faith, there is peace and negotiations have become unnecessary.

No. Diplomacy is not a form of war, per Beeps' comment.

War is a subset of a general class of activity, political conflict resolution, or simpler political goals achievment. Diplomatic means, for example, can prevent a war or render it moot. Conversely, a war can overcome diplomatic efforts, support them, or render them irrelevant.

I think it 's worth looking at this a bit more deeply than the Clausewitzian ahporism.

The DIME model of politically useful means of suasion for resolving political disagreement or conflict, and also useful in simple pursuit of political ends:

Diplomacy and deal making, which usually backed up in part by one or all of the following:

Informational or ideological and symbolic assets/character
Military/forceful means
Economic/Trade assets/capability
Geographic advantageous character or location​

(I add geography to DIME for my own reasons, since sometimes location is immensely useful in a negotiation or setting up a deal, resolving a disagreement, and so on, and is somewhat independent of the other four factors.)

I grant that "DIME" is not the only model of analyzing how nations and political bodies use tools to achieve ends, but it's concise enough for most illustrative purposes.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

.........

Wildcat, citing the Hamas charter like that is similar to the R & P forum tactic of citing the Bible, explicitly the Old Testament, and insisting that a slavish adherence to that charter is the day to day rule. Granted, the charter is quite limited in scope in comparison, and hasn't quite the time to grow as a holy book has. I see continued reference to that as though it proves one can't work with these people as a bit narrow.

Granted, that might be true, and Hamas might be a haven for True Believers. They have, via the election process, tried to transition from just a terrorist/resistance organization into a political party/body. Such a transition may force a change on them. Not sure. Maybe they were unwilling to transform quickly enough to a newer iteration, a Hamas v3.0, that can operate well at the political level.

If one looks at the evolution of the Fatah party over time, an organization with a similar set of goals, in time a bit of "working with" has been possible. Not easy, no, and not bloodless, but in time some room to work with has accrued to the Israelis.

I am, at the practical level, far more concerned by the issue of Hamas as Iran Proxy. It's a source of encouragement and resourcing that explicitly enables a protracted forever war. The parallels to Hezbollah in that regard are not encouraging.

*I had to ETA, I effed up the first try*

DR

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, citing the Hamas charter like that is similar to the R & P forum tactic of citing the Bible, explicitly the Old Testament, and insisting that a slavish adherence to that charter is the day to day rule. Granted, the charter is quite limited in scope in comparison, and hasn't quite the time to grow as a holy book has. I see continued reference to that as though it proves one can't work with these people as a bit narrow.

Granted, that might be true, and Hamas might be a haven for True Believers. They have, via the election process, tried to transition from just a terrorist/resistance organization into a political party/body. Such a transition may force a change on them. Not sure. Maybe they were unwilling to transform quickly enough to a newer iteration, a Hamas v3.0, that can operate well at the political level.

If one looks at the evolution of the Fatah party over time, an organization with a similar set of goals, in time a bit of "working with" has been possible. Not easy, no, and not bloodless, but in time some room to work with has accrued to the Israelis.

I am, at the practical level, far more concerned by the issue of Hamas as Iran Proxy. It's a source of encouragement and resourcing that explicitly enables a protracted forever war. The parallels to Hezbollah in that regard are not encouraging.

*I had to ETA, I effed up the first try*

DR

The Hamas charter wasn't written 3,000 years ago, it was written in 1988. The authors are still alive and in charge of Hamas (though some may well have found themselves under an Israeli bomb of late).

Hamas is raising their children to become killers of Jews and terrorists, they have spent the last 8 years or so launching rockets into Israel.

They're not just talking the talk, they're walking the walk.

(Godwin warning)

They're as far removed from their charter in time as 1945 Germany was to Hitler's Mein Kampf.

 

[UserGoogol]

Oh, if only you were right. If only we could blame stupidity for all our problems, and the shining beacon of intelligence would solve them all.

History shows, time and again, this simply isn't the case. Stalin wasn't stupid. He wasn't anything resembling stupid. His intellect and ability to reason were staggering. Himmler? Certainly above average, if not straight up genius level. Robert E. Lee? An engineer, career army officer, and straight up brilliant general. Everyone was impressed by his intelligence. Osama? Do you really think Osama bin Laden is a stupid man?

They certainly have some cleverness to them, but that does not mean they are intelligent in all areas. You can be stupid in some areas and clever in others, and in the end, everyone is stupid in some areas. If reason cannot show why Stalin was wrong and democracy is right, then Stalin wasn't wrong, it's just a matter of personal opinion. However, if reason can show this, then Stalin simply lacked enough reason to deduce this. I am inclined to find the latter more likely, although I admit both are possible. (Although "stupid" probably conflates several different kinds of intellectual strength. Those people probably had the intellectual capacity to contemplate why their viewpoints were untenable, but either they failed to do this or were willing to be willfully ignorant. Although it depends on the kind of evil. The idea that Jews are vermin seems like it should be an easy to refute idea, but say, crude selfishness is rather hard to rigorously disprove.)

 

[Giz]

They certainly have some cleverness to them, but that does not mean they are intelligent in all areas. You can be stupid in some areas and clever in others, and in the end, everyone is stupid in some areas. If reason cannot show why Stalin was wrong and democracy is right, then Stalin wasn't wrong, it's just a matter of personal opinion. However, if reason can show this, then Stalin simply lacked enough reason to deduce this. I am inclined to find the latter more likely, although I admit both are possible. (Although "stupid" probably conflates several different kinds of intellectual strength. Those people probably had the intellectual capacity to contemplate why their viewpoints were untenable, but either they failed to do this or were willing to be willfully ignorant. Although it depends on the kind of evil. The idea that Jews are vermin seems like it should be an easy to refute idea, but say, crude selfishness is rather hard to rigorously disprove.)

You seem to be defining empathy and/or a capacity for altruism as a facet of intelligence.

Most people don't.

(For example, perhaps Stalin was quite capable of figuring out that freedom and democracy would give millions of "average" people better lives but he, intelligently but immoraly, figured out that he personally would be better off if he hung onto power - whatever the cost to others. Self interest - immoral but not stupid).

 

[UserGoogol]

You seem to be defining empathy and/or a capacity for altruism as a facet of intelligence.

Most people don't.

(For example, perhaps Stalin was quite capable of figuring out that freedom and democracy would give millions of "average" people better lives but he, intelligently but immoraly, figured out that he personally would be better off if he hung onto power - whatever the cost to others. Self interest - immoral but not stupid).

I think the word stupid is distracting from my point. The main point is that Stalin is WRONG in thinking that it's okay for him to cause suffering to others for the sake of others. Thus, he held a wrong belief, and holding one wrong belief is not fundamentally different than holding any other wrong belief, and that holding incorrect views does not render a person incapable of being reasoned with. There are different reasons why they hold these views than other views are held, but the basic principle is the same. They have certain stances regarding the nature of the universe, and that is not how the universe actually is. A more careful usage of cold deliberative reasoning might have fixed this, but, the same is true of anything people do or believe ever.

(I mean, I suspect Stalin thought he was doing was right on some level and that it would advance other's interests rather than it being just malicious selfishness, but that's just optimism on my part, and really really something that should be left to another thread.)

Although I do think antisemitism is an area where stupidity is a more appropriate term. Whether or not Jews are vermin out to destroy the world isn't just some abstract philosophical point, it's a point that can be easily refuted through observation. Just look at them, they're not vermin at all. Individual Jews might do bad things from time to time, but nothing on the level of the Articles of the Protocols of Zion, and to think otherwise is stupid.

 

[BPSCG]

Individual Jews might do bad things from time to time, but nothing on the level of the Articles of the Protocols of Zion, and to think otherwise is stupid.

Not if that's all you've been taught every day since you were born, and have never heard a dissenting viewpoint or been presented with any evidence to the contrary.

 

[GreyICE]

I think the word stupid is distracting from my point. The main point is that Stalin is WRONG in thinking that it's okay for him to cause suffering to others for the sake of others. Thus, he held a wrong belief, and holding one wrong belief is not fundamentally different than holding any other wrong belief, and that holding incorrect views does not render a person incapable of being reasoned with. There are different reasons why they hold these views than other views are held, but the basic principle is the same. They have certain stances regarding the nature of the universe, and that is not how the universe actually is. A more careful usage of cold deliberative reasoning might have fixed this, but, the same is true of anything people do or believe ever.

Why is Stalin wrong to think this? We can empathically say that it's wrong to cause the suffering of others for the sake of a different group, but practically we do it all the time. We cause the suffering of criminals by locking them up to save others from having to live with them. We cause the suffering of enemy nations and armies for the sake of our own. We cause suffering for people who are not promoted if we get promoted.

(I mean, I suspect Stalin thought he was doing was right on some level and that it would advance other's interests rather than it being just malicious selfishness, but that's just optimism on my part, and really really something that should be left to another thread.)

Stalin advancing OTHERS interests?

Although I do think antisemitism is an area where stupidity is a more appropriate term. Whether or not Jews are vermin out to destroy the world isn't just some abstract philosophical point, it's a point that can be easily refuted through observation. Just look at them, they're not vermin at all. Individual Jews might do bad things from time to time, but nothing on the level of the Articles of the Protocols of Zion, and to think otherwise is stupid.

Categorical bigotry is stupid because it's a form of sloppy thinking. Himmler was using that sloppy thinking quite intelligently, to advance his particular party by creating a scapegoat. That's hardly stupid.

We can argue what's right or wrong until we're blue in the face, why locking criminals up is different from locking up political prisoners is different from locking up people who might have spoke out against the state. But the men committing these "wrong" actions are not in any way stupid. Assuming that they are stupid is exactly the same fallacy as antisemitism - you are applying one categorical label (stupid) to a group (people committing actions you believe are wrong).

Assuming that these are STUPID people and treating them as such is remarkably dangerous. While you can quibble about whether people committing "wrong" actions deserve the same level of respect as people who are Jewish, the basic thought process is very similar. You choose one trait, and apply a completely unrelated trait to people on the basis of the first trait, due to preconceived notions not examined or tested.

 

[BPSCG]

Jimmy Carter weighs in today on whose fault the current war is.

See if you can guess without looking.

 

[gtc]

Beat me to it.
On the truce:

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

The rockets never actually stopped, did they?

The term 'defensive tunnel' is a particularly odd phrase. Does anyone know what the tunnel was to be used for?

 

[dudalb]

Carter, sadly, reminds me (at the risk of a Godwin) of the well meaning but misguided peace advocates in the 1930's who refused to believe that Hitler had any hostile intent and whitewashed his every action.
And Carter still tries to portray himself as a "neutral broker" in the Mideast conflict. Pathetic.

 

[BPSCG]

The term 'defensive tunnel' is a particularly odd phrase. Does anyone know what the tunnel was to be used for?

Oooh, ooh, I do, pick me, pick me!!!

"Defensive tunnels" to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza to be used against...

Portugal!

Honestly, I think Carter is getting senile.