• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jimmy Carter is a terrorist

Abdul Alhazred

Philosopher
A
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
6,023
Not a sympathizer. Not an apologist. Not a propagandist.

A terrorist.

Jimmy Carter proudly becomes Hamas advisor
Israel Today

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

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

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

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

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

He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.
 
Are all writers for that website illiterate? Or just Ryan Jones? Is that a requirement for the job?

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

Thanks for posting this satirical example of how stupid people really can be!
 
Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad.

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

But that is just my opinion. ;)
 
I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt.
 
BirdStrike said:
Simply having an ex-US president meet with Hamas in Damascus is enough for me to ignore Mr. Carter from now on. It's no different than Bush Sr. sipping tea with Al Qaeda, or Clinton breaking bread with Islamic Jihad.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

From Carter's website:

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

Emphasis mine. That seems like a euphemism for ransom negotiation to me.
 
ravdin said:
From Carter's website:



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

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

However, the "Israel Today" article changed it into
he advised Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on what price to demand for hostage Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit
Click to expand...
which implies that Carter took a partisan stance in this. That's the dirty spin on it.
 
The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.) Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides.
 
ravdin said:
I'd stop short myself of calling Jimmy Carter a "terrorist". "Useful idiot" might be more apt.
Click to expand...

That the local terrorist leaders are more interested in securing power and wealth than they are of the surface arguments they use for the masses has a lot more explanatory power than that they are leading some kind of freedom movement.
 
Doctor Evil said:
The German government was recognised as mediator by both sides. I have seen no evidence that Carter was accepted as a mediator be the Israelis. (I strongly suspect that he was not, as the Egyptians were the mediators so far.)
Click to expand...
Fair enough. As far as I'm aware, he isn't accepted by Hamas either as mediator.

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

Doctor Evil said:
Given that, your I am not sure that the Israel today description is not accurate. I am willing to change my opinion is you can show me that Carter was asked to mediate by both sides.
Click to expand...
You're conflating two issues. It sounds as if you say that anyone who tries to mediate without recognition as such, must be by default a traitor to your favorite side.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
He has crossed the line. He is now a terrorist.
Click to expand...

You should watch who you call a "terrorist".

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

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

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

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

Still, several uncoordinated mediators are more likely to harm then help. To get such deals both sides have to compromise on things they do not really want to. This is less likely to happen if some other mediator appears and offer one of the sides a better deal.
 
A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals.

Who did Carter kill...and what goal is he trying to achieve?
 
parky76 said:
A terrorist is someone who has engaged in violent acts against a civilian population, with the purpose of intimidating the population and/or achieving political goals.

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

Accessory after the fact, if the story is true.

If the story is not true, then only an apologist and propagandist for mass murder.
 
What the Hey...the story was plausable enough to get Abduls hormones pumping....
 
If the article is true, Carter has given Hamas a huge propaganda boost if nothing else. He is a fool.
 
Perhaps Carter honestly believes he is helping to alleviate the nearly impossible situation.

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

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

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

Back
Top Bottom