# Carter meets with political leader of Hamas in Syria



## CrimsonWhite (Dec 14, 2008)

Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible. 



> (CNN) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met Sunday in Damascus, Syria, with Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas' political wing, a Hamas official said.
> 
> The five-hour meeting ended late Sunday and covered several issues, including Cpl. Gilad Shalit -- an Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas since June 2006, the official said.
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Dec 14, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.



My problem is that he's already expressed a huge amount of anti-semitism... so he doesn't go being an honest broker.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 14, 2008)

Hamas is a legally recognized political organization in Gaza.

Carter should be praised for reaching out to these people.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Dec 14, 2008)

Nothing new here... Let's not forget that Jimmuh Cawtuh started International Islamic Terrorism by encouraging these idiots.  I expect he'll be encouraging them until he expires...  of course evil is a tough bitch so we can expect his fairy ass to be around a while yet.


----------



## Chris (Dec 14, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Nothing new here... Let's not forget that Jimmuh Cawtuh started International Islamic Terrorism by encouraging these idiots.  I expect he'll be encouraging them until he expires...  of course evil is a tough bitch so we can expect his fairy ass to be around a while yet.



No, actually Ronald Reagan started AQ by sending money and arms to Bin Laden and the mujahadeen in Afganistan.

But keep living your us vs them fantasy.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.




Someone needs to take that idiot's passport away.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Hamas is a legally recognized political organization in Gaza.
> 
> Carter should be praised for reaching out to these people.



Hamas is a terrorist organization the people of Palestine voted for as their government.  Makes the entire state of Palestine a terrorist state, IMO.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, actually Ronald Reagan started AQ by sending money and arms to Bin Laden and the mujahadeen in Afganistan.
> 
> But keep living your us vs them fantasy.



No, actually Jimmy Carter started that.  But keep living in your "Dem is good / Republican is bad" fantasy.


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Hamas is a legally recognized political organization in Gaza.
> 
> Carter should be praised for reaching out to these people.



Sorry, but Carter is an embarrassment to this country and has been since the day he was elected -and he has only stepped up that embarrassment since the American people threw him out of office.  He is a private citizen and speaks for no one but himself.  Former Presidents have NO authority to insert themselves into foreign affairs as if they actually have any authority or their word means a damn thing.  This has no more meaning than if Heather the Beautician had a meeting with the leaders of Hamas, sorry.  

Former Presidents have NO business sticking their noses into international affairs unless SPECIFICALLY requested to do so by the current President.  Which has never happened in the case of Carter.  He has been a thorn in the side of every single President since he got kicked out of office - always pretending the American people would actually prefer HE be the one making foreign policy.  Couldn't be further from the truth.  The American people threw him out BECAUSE his foreign and domestic policies were utter disaster for this country.  

It doesn't matter whether we have a Democrat or Republican President since then.  He still keeps pretending he is the one actually elected to set foreign policy and sticking his nose into affairs in spite of every single President since he got kicked out of office -REPEATEDLY asking him to BUTT OUT.  

There is only ONE person elected to speak for the nation.  It isn't Carter.  What he can't deal with?  It never will be again.  By the overwhelming decision of the American people.  Anyone who actually had to live through Carter's miserable four years -hasn't regretted that decision since.  As far as I'm concerned -the wrong former President got hit with Alzheimer's.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 15, 2008)

I know, those terrorists who construct illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, annexed the Golan Heights, unjustly invaded Lebanon numerous times, used cluster munitions against the civilian population in Lebanon...oh. Wait. That was someone else around there.


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 15, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, actually Ronald Reagan started AQ by sending money and arms to Bin Laden and the mujahadeen in Afganistan.
> 
> But keep living your us vs them fantasy.



And you might want to get your history lessons through unbiased sources instead of the whacko leftwing fruitcakes intent on re-writing history.  You probably think the US actually gave Saddam Hussein a bunch of WMD too, right?  Because you read it somewhere on some leftwing extremist website?   ROFL  In spite of the fact that the US was the leading nation pushing the UN to denounce Saddam for actually using WMD against Iran?   And in spite of the fact the US once again cut off even the very limited diplomatic ties it had for all of three months with Iraq and returned to its decade-long unilateral embargo against Iraq - BECAUSE it used WMD?

OMG -the people who just can't wait and are so willing to believe the absolute worst about their own country.  And it doesn't matter WHAT the issue is -they always side with the filth instead.  Oh sure, one of THE most transparent governments on the planet and in history -- is actually guilty of THE most devious, murderous, filthiest acts in the last 50 years over all other nations.  Yeah the entire world would be holding hands and singing Kumbaya if it weren't for the US, right?  No doubt you also think the most secretive, the downright evil and murderous regimes on the planet are actually innocent, helpless regimes being "unfairly" picked on by the big, mean US, right?  Sure YOU would gladly forfeit every right in the Bill of Rights and choose to live under a brutal, murderous dictatorship as long as they provided "free" health insurance, right?  ROFLMAO  Maybe those who are SO willing to condemn millions to live under the most oppressive, murderous and inhumane systems on the planet as if their freedom couldn't possibly be valuable to them at all -should have to live there first themselves.

Sorry, but the US never gave Bin Laden money or weapons -they dealt directly with actual Afghanistan nationals organized to fight the USSR occupation of their OWN country.  For very real and legitimate reasons.  You might want to research what those reasons are.  And Bin Laden is a Saudi national -and a leader of nothing at that time.  He was with a foreign group that received no US funding, weren't effective in the conflict at all and eventually left.  The fact Bin Laden chose to BE in Afghanistan for part of that time -doesn't change history and facts.  The US never dealt with him or any other foreign group that chose to insert themselves into that conflict - at all.


----------



## auditor0007 (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Someone needs to take that idiot's passport away.



Maybe they could just make him stay there.  Don't let him back in.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> No, actually Jimmy Carter started that.  But keep living in your "Dem is good / Republican is bad" fantasy.


actually, no US money went to bin laden or the taliban
but the lib morons will never let that lie go


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> I know, those terrorists who construct illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, annexed the Golan Heights, unjustly invaded Lebanon numerous times, used cluster munitions against the civilian population in Lebanon...oh. Wait. That was someone else around there.




Right.  You're talking about the ones that walk into wedding parties or get on school busses and detonate themselves, and/or fire missiles into civilian housing areas and have waged war against NOTHING but unarmed civilian noncombatants.

Probably because every time they try face to face like men, with men, they get their asses handed to them and get sent running for Beirut.  Being murderers and thugs works out so much better for them; especially, with people like Carter and you more than willing to excuse their actions.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> actually, no US money went to bin laden or the taliban
> but the lib morons will never let that lie go



Disagree.  One of the few times in the late 70s I actually was paying attention to what was going on.  The Carter Administration was, via the CIA and ironically enough, smuggling weapons through Pakistan to the Muhajadeen, of which bin Laden was a key player and financier.

I still have the vague recollection of one of the 60 minutes reporters standing at the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan giving the report.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

see what i was talking about jillian..each side..clings to their hate...each side shouting the injustices committed by the other side...never looking at what they are doing themselves....how can anyone shout down a man seeking peace?  when did peace become a bad thing?


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

btw dont mistake all these so called support as support...christians only want to protect the jews to fulfill the "rapture"


----------



## bk1983 (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Disagree.  One of the few times in the late 70s I actually was paying attention to what was going on.  The Carter Administration was, via the CIA and ironically enough, smuggling weapons through Pakistan to the Muhajadeen, of which bin Laden was a key player and financier.
> 
> I still have the vague recollection of one of the 60 minutes reporters standing at the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan giving the report.



Honestly we dont know how much money was given to any of these groups, because no proper accounting was done. Inspector Kay of the Bush admin was given millions in reward money and green cards with passports to any paradise you can dream of for any Iraqi who came forward with intelligence on WMD's.. Unfortunately a treasure chest of funds were given to Iraqi people who may have been members of any insurgency, they gave in return fabricated intelligence. 



> "You cannot believe how hard it is to motivate people in the field who know that all they are doing is going through busy work motions because they themselves know there are no weapons there.
> 
> "I faced that over a year ago with a team that essentially knew that we were right when we said they were no weapons."


-Former US Inspector(David Kay) for the Iraq survey group in charge of the wmd search.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.



since when does the actions of a single american citizen merit this much attention....is carter not feel to meet with hamas.....its not like he is trying to travel to cuba now is it?

or do you cw propose more travel restrictions on free americans?


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.



I applaud Carter, who has demonstrated more courage than any American president in recent times.

The notion that America should stand hostage to Israeli policy is insane .. and it contributes to the religion of anti-americanism.

Israel is the most hated nation on the planet for very good reasons.

We are an uninformed people and we contribute heavily to our own demise.

BRAVO President Carter.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> My problem is that he's already expressed a huge amount of anti-semitism... so he doesn't go being an honest broker.



Anti-semitism = The unwillingness to bend over and kiss the ass of the Israeli government.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> see what i was talking about jillian..each side..clings to their hate...each side shouting the injustices committed by the other side...never looking at what they are doing themselves....how can anyone shout down a man seeking peace?  *when did peace become a bad thing?*



Whenever it isn't the "peace" dictated by Israel.


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

Carter, unlike most of our government, has some credibility in the Arab community.

He was, after all, the only POTUS to ever have forged a lasting peace accord between an Arab nation and Israel.

If we want peace in the Mid East we are going to have to talk to the enemy.  Carter is a man with the credibility, the patience and the interpersonal skills to do that

It's fairly obvious, after 50 years, that war isn't going to solve this problem.


----------



## Red Dawn (Dec 15, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.



He's meeting with Hamas at the request of the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister.   



> "*a spokesman for Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai said Friday that Yishai had asked Carter to arrange for him to meet with Hamas to discuss a possible prisoner exchange.*
> 
> Yishai, a member of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, has said he believes it is his religious duty to try to win the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was kidnapped nearly two years ago and has been held in Gaza since." -- WASHINGTON POST


----------



## jillian (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> see what i was talking about jillian..each side..clings to their hate...each side shouting the injustices committed by the other side...never looking at what they are doing themselves....how can anyone shout down a man seeking peace?  when did peace become a bad thing?



Because Jimmy Carter wrote a book in which he clearly expresses his hatred for Israel.

That doesn't make him an honest broker for peace. He helped when he assisted Begin and Sadat to sit down. But tht was a long time ago. 

Peace is a good thing. Destroying Israel isn't.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Anti-semitism = The unwillingness to bend over and kiss the ass of the Israeli government.


That's a great line!!!

And true, very, very true!!


----------



## jillian (Dec 15, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Anti-semitism = The unwillingness to bend over and kiss the ass of the Israeli government.



Pro-palestinian propaganda.

It means someone who thinks Israel shouldn't exist.

Do let me know when you support giving California back to Mexico.


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 15, 2008)

Carter needs to put his tool belt back on and get back to building houses. That way the idiot liberals can stop giving out loans to people who never paid their bills anyway and the poor shits can get out of public housing and out of my pocket. Other than that, Carter is useless. 

And he can take lard ass Barney Frank along to help him!


----------



## Xenophon (Dec 15, 2008)

Ah, Jimmy carter, the retarded uncle who just won't go away.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> Because Jimmy Carter wrote a book in which he clearly expresses his hatred for Israel.
> 
> That doesn't make him an honest broker for peace. He helped when he assisted Begin and Sadat to sit down. But tht was a long time ago.
> 
> Peace is a good thing. Destroying Israel isn't.



Carter has never expressed any interest in destroying Israel .. and to suggest that Israel is just an innocent victim and has not contributed HEAVILY to its own negative images, is not an honest assessment of the ME.

Peace cannot nor never will be obtained with our imbalanced view.

I'm not interested in the destruction of Israel either .. my concern is peace in the ME and ensuring that Americans do not have to die for Zionism.

It would also seem to be increasingly necessary to send far less American taxpayer dollars to prop up an Israeli government so centered on war.


----------



## Red Dawn (Dec 15, 2008)

Yelling that you won't meet with terrorists, is just kabuki theater designed for domestic political consumption, and for rightwing talk radio. 

In the real world, Israel is already meeting and negotiating with Hamas behind the scenes, with Egypt as the intermediary, and the United States encouraging it. 

Is anyone really going to defend Egypt as an "intermediary", as oppossed to Carter?   Whatever you think of Carter, I think he has america's and israel's interests more at heart, than does egypt. 



> Israel _has been trading proposals with Hamas this spring for a possible cease-fire._ Egypt has served as the intermediary, and the United States has encouraged the process behind the scenes. Those talks have snagged on the issue of whether the West Bank would also be included in the cease-fire, with Hamas arguing that it must be and Israel balking. --Washington Post




There's too much partisanship on this issue.  I don't think Israel deserves to be called the most hated nation on earth, and I don't think all arabs and muslims are evil.  And I don't think Jewish bankers control the world.   This issue always seems to get distilled down to crap like that.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> Pro-palestinian propaganda.
> 
> It means someone who thinks Israel shouldn't exist.
> 
> Do let me know when you support giving California back to Mexico.



By your own words that isn't true.

Carter does not believe Israel should not exist .. yet you call him anti-semite.

And, the belief that Israel is the aggressor isn't pro-Palestinian, it the pro-planet earth view.

California and Mexico don't have a damn thing to do with this and you know that. A better analogy would be what we did to the American Indian.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 15, 2008)

How about this .. is it "antisemitic?"

"(We) are opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called "State of Israel"!

Carter didn't say that .. a group of orthodox Jews did.
What is the Neturei Karta?

Founded in 1938, split off from a group founded in 1912, they are among hundreds of groups of JEWISH people who are opposed to the Israeli government.

Are they antisemitic?


----------



## jillian (Dec 15, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> How about this .. is it "antisemitic?"
> 
> "(We) are opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called "State of Israel"!
> 
> ...



Different and you know it. They believe Israel shouldn't exist til the coming of the Messiah... It has nothing to do with wanting dead and subjugated jews.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Right.  You're talking about the ones that walk into wedding parties or get on school busses and detonate themselves, and/or fire missiles into civilian housing areas and have waged war against NOTHING but unarmed civilian noncombatants.
> 
> Probably because every time they try face to face like men, with men, they get their asses handed to them and get sent running for Beirut.  Being murderers and thugs works out so much better for them; especially, with people like Carter and you more than willing to excuse their actions.



I'm talking about those people? I don't remember mentioning the Irgun, or their terrorist leaders, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Elected Prime Ministers, if I recall correctly. 

We rant on in this country over the highest public official in the country having alleged ties to a man branded a former terrorist, yet don't make a peep over the fact that _*actual*_ terrorists can get elected in Israel.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> Different and you know it. They believe Israel shouldn't exist til the coming of the Messiah... It has nothing to do with wanting dead and subjugated jews.



So is Ahmadinejad still anti-Semitic too, considering that they met with him?


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

I do not believe Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite.

Rushing to call people anti-Semites is foolish and as much a cause of turning people anti-Semitisms as all the religious blather than has ever been uttered.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, actually Ronald Reagan started AQ by sending money and arms to Bin Laden and the mujahadeen in Afganistan.
> 
> But keep living your us vs them fantasy.



There is NO evidence that Bin Laden received any money or equipment or training from the US. But do provide any links you may have that sya otherwise.


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 15, 2008)

Just a general comment here ..........

Personally I don't see where disagreeing with Israeli politics or even not agreeing with there being a State of Israel as being anti-Semitic. Yet, often times when one expresses an opposing political or policy view to that of the Israeli government, they are labeled as such. 

Now, called for the death of an entire people, that is much different. But, often times that is not the case. The issues are political, economic or social living.


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 15, 2008)

Just a general comment here ..........

Personally I do not feel that former presidents should place themselves in affairs which effect this nation, unless asked to do so, by the sitting president.

Naturally charity movements are the exception, so long as they are not politically motivated. 

I think the former presidents still hold an obligation to the White House and the nation. Wanting to help is wonderful, but, if must be done within the framework and under the direction of the sitting president.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> see what i was talking about jillian..each side..clings to their hate...each side shouting the injustices committed by the other side...never looking at what they are doing themselves....how can anyone shout down a man seeking peace?  when did peace become a bad thing?



He is NOT seeking peace. Peace has to be mutual. Hamas has no intention of EVER mutually existing with Israel. They have as part of their charter the absolute destruction of Israel.

Select your terms more carefully.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that Bin Laden received any money or equipment or training from the US. But do provide any links you may have that sya otherwise.


Since the money and weapons were provided to the Mujahideen by the CIA

There is very little evidence as to who recieved any equipment or training.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Since the money and weapons were provided to the Mujahideen by the CIA
> 
> There is very little evidence as to who recieved any equipment or training.



Ahh, so we can then ask Bin Laden. Guess what he says?


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh, so we can then ask Bin Laden. Guess what he says?



Sunni is totally off base.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> So is Ahmadinejad still anti-Semitic too, considering that they met with him?



Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. 

Second only to Israel.

There are even Jews who serve in the Iranian government.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh, so we can then ask Bin Laden. Guess what he says?


Actually. I would believe Bin Laden before I would believe the CIA


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Actually. I would believe Bin Laden before I would believe the CIA


 

Given the CIA's 50 year long and well documented history of lying to their own presidents to cover up their own incompetence, you mean?

I frankly can't blame you.


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 15, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Is anyone really going to defend Egypt as an "intermediary", as oppossed to Carter?   Whatever you think of Carter, I think he has america's and israel's interests more at heart, than does egypt.
> 
> 
> There's too much partisanship on this issue.  I don't think Israel deserves to be called the most hated nation on earth, and I don't think all arabs and muslims are evil.  And I don't think Jewish bankers control the world.   This issue always seems to get distilled down to crap like that.





I think that Carter is a good man, a man who truly only wants to help and to achieve good. I don't think he means any harm to anyone and I commend him on giving so much of himself for the betterment of others.

But, I really feel that any former president needs to work within the frame work of the sitting president at all times. Or they need to stay out of it. I would like to see each sitting president access and use the assets of each former president as much as possible. Each one has unique abilities which can be of value and so will Bush.

As for your assessment of Israel, Arabs, Jewish Bankers and so on. I agree. Too much bull shit exaggerations are tossed back and forth, just mucking up the real issues and positive happenings.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Actually. I would believe Bin Laden before I would believe the CIA



Ahh and he STATES he NEVER received training, money or supplies from the CIA.


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh and he STATES he NEVER received training, money or supplies from the CIA.


 
Perhaps he didn't.

The CIA is clearly competent at funding terrorists through cutouts.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

I doubt Bin Laden ever delt directly with the CIA

But clearly, the CIA was the main source of funds and weapons for any group fighting the Soviets.


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I doubt Bin Laden ever delt directly with the CIA
> 
> But clearly, the CIA was the main source of funds and weapons for any group fighting the Soviets.


 
Yeah, that's entirely plausible.

I don't think Bid Laden was anything the main man in Afghanistan.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

The CIA did not fund, train or supply foreign groups in Afghanistan. They provided support to AFGHAN nationals.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The CIA did not fund, train or supply foreign groups in Afghanistan. They provided support to AFGHAN nationals.



Do you really believe that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Do you really believe that?



Yes. Using the logic you and others are using we can blame the Soviets for arming, training and creating AQ and any other terror group that had any time in Afghanistan.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes. Using the logic you and others are using we can blame the Soviets for arming, training and creating AQ and any other terror group that had any time in Afghanistan.


The CIA was well known to fund ANY group that would fight the Soviets/Communism any where in the world.

Be it Asia, South America, or the Middle East.


----------



## editec (Dec 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The CIA did not fund, train or supply foreign groups in Afghanistan. They provided support to AFGHAN nationals.


 
Semantics debate.

How do YOU define a terrorist?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't feel like going back and figuring out who shot John on this thread, but concerning the argument about funding of the anti-Soviet insurgency, it was done by the CIA. How extensively? Well, I happened to be going to the University of Nebraska at Omaha at the time. So what? Well, it had been designated as the Center for Afghan Studies. We had all the kids of the warlords going to school there. (Including a hottie who was in my Foreign Policy of the USSR class who was also in the National Guard (Nebraska) and Miss Nebraska, but I digress). When the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan, the CIA came to our campus and provided a briefing for the Afghan students about what the situation was. It was not closed and I attended. Like most CIA briefs, nothing exciting was disclosed, but it gives you an idea of how involved they were. Of course, I got greater detail from the other students about the level of CIA involvement.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The CIA was well known to fund ANY group that would fight the Soviets/Communism any where in the world.
> 
> Be it Asia, South America, or the Middle East.


wrong, we did not support just "any group"


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

Lycurgus said:


> Carter needs to put his tool belt back on and get back to building houses. That way the idiot liberals can stop giving out loans to people who never paid their bills anyway and the poor shits can get out of public housing and out of my pocket. Other than that, Carter is useless.
> 
> And he can take lard ass Barney Frank along to help him!



your christmas wish is not offending...your attitude towards those who do not agree with you...is


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

complete jew by christain def is one who has seen the light and converted to jesus etc.

nice way to refer to it...hamas....why does hamas exist?  think about it..who profits from hamas..why are there jewish settlers in the west bank, why does israel ignore international law....why are americans so linked with israel that we are hated in the same breath by palestinians....

now on the other side....why do palestinians not go to jordan and close jenin....and the other refugees camps....why do they matyr their children...what type of hopelessness causes this?

i see both sides as the victim and the preyer....extremist on neither side want peace....the right of return must be given up ....settlers must be dislodged ...if you just look at the stats...arabs outnumber jews...even the importation of russian jews is not going to change that....

and more questions...why are any of your asses jewishs or islamic here?  why arent your asses in these countries you profess such great love and devotion too?  i love my fucking country and i am sick of both religions using us and killing us...if i felt there was a better country my ass would be there...so riddle me this...

to the jews..why arent you settling in israel?

to the islamics..why not return to the lands you think are so great and see how that goes?


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> complete jew by christain def is one who has seen the light and converted to jesus etc.
> 
> nice way to refer to it...hamas....why does hamas exist?  think about it..who profits from hamas..why are there jewish settlers in the west bank, why does israel ignore international law....why are americans so linked with israel that we are hated in the same breath by palestinians....
> 
> ...


there are Jews in the west bank because they have ALWAYS been there
whats known as the west bank used to be called Judea
gee, any guesses as to why?


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

the right of return must be given up by both sides for there to ever be peace....so are we giving these lands back to the native americans???? come on div


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the right of return must be given up by both sides for there to ever be peace....so are we giving these lands back to the native americans???? come on div


you asked why, i told you
and its not a "right of return" they are already THERE and have been there for YEARS
what you are now asking is that they be removed from their own land


and Native Americans(i have Native American heritage) are just as free in this country to live where we choose


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Disagree.  One of the few times in the late 70s I actually was paying attention to what was going on.  The Carter Administration was, via the CIA and ironically enough, smuggling weapons through Pakistan to the Muhajadeen, of which bin Laden was a key player and financier.
> 
> I still have the vague recollection of one of the 60 minutes reporters standing at the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan giving the report.



"Muhajadeen" simply means Islamic warriors.  All Muslims in the conflict opposing Soviet control and influence in Afghanistan were called "muhajadeen" regardless of their country of origin.  But that doesn't mean the US funded any and all of them -because they didn't.  Bin Laden has never claimed he received any money or arms from the US -in fact, he has only belittled the role the US did play, saying it was negligible.  The majority of his time was spent in Pakistan trying to raise funds for Afghan resistance fighters although he was present off and on as a guerilla fighter for about three years.  In fact, Al Qaeda was first formed for the purpose of raising money for Afghan fighters.  But he was not a key figure in that conflict since it was the Afghans who formed and led their own resistance groups and did the bulk of all the fighting.

In July, 1979 in response to Carter's Presidential finding authorizing it, the CIA began Operation Cyclone to fund Afghan resistance fighters.  That operation was later expanded to also funnel money to Afghan resistance fighters through Pakistan's secret services.  

But the US didn't funnel money through Bin Laden, his group or directly fund the efforts of any foreign fighters or those of any foreign group.  Funding foreign fighters would have opened the US to legitimate criticism around the world that the US was supporting foreign efforts to overthrow a sitting government.  (The government in Kabul was run by the Soviets' Afghan "puppets", and therefore technically an Afghan government with an army manned by Afghans.  Afghans fought on both sides in the conflict.)  The US dealt directly only with Afghan resistance groups in that conflict -because taking sides in a civil war is not the same thing as supporting foreign efforts to overthrow the government of another country.   

That doesn't mean US money that was given to Afghan muhajadeen or funneled through Pakistan's secret services to Afghan fighters didn't end up being used to fund any foreign fighters -it probably was even though foreign fighters were not the main fighting force and not leading the Afghan muhajadeen.   But that would have come directly from the Afghans as their decision about how to use the funds given them, or the decision of Pakistan's secret services about how to funnel that US money to Afghan fighters. Not the decision of the US which purposely refused to deal directly with any foreign fighters in Afghanistan.  Since Bin Laden was so heavily involved in fund-raising for that war himself, I think its more likely he relied upon the funds he raised and unlikely to have received any US funds even secondhand from Afghan fighters.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Looks like Jimmy Carter forgot that he is no longer in office again. A former President meeting with the leadership of a terrorist organization is nothing short of contemptible.



Carter has the RIGHT idea, only he is the wrong man! Really the Israelis needs to start talking directly with Hamas! Honestly a top 5 worst ex-Presidents in US history needs to sit this one out.

Yes yes I know all the rhetoric of Hamas's oath, bylaws and pledge to destroy Israel! However, status quo for Israel and Palestine/Hamas is not an option! Israel needs to talk to the ones in power and for better or for worse that is Hamas. The PLO is not the speaker or decision maker for the Palestinians, Hamas is!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, actually Ronald Reagan started AQ by sending money and arms to Bin Laden and the mujahadeen in Afganistan.
> 
> But keep living your us vs them fantasy.



Along with Charlie Wilson!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Hamas is a terrorist organization the people of Palestine voted for as their government.  Makes the entire state of Palestine a terrorist state, IMO.



True, but they are the ones in power! The only thing keeping them from over-running Abbas, Fatah and the PLO from the WB is the IDF!

Israel needs to negotiate with the ones in power, and that is Hamas


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 15, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> True, but they are the ones in power! The only thing keeping them from over-running Abbas, Fatah and the PLO from the WB is the IDF!
> 
> Israel needs to negotiate with the ones in power, and that is Hamas



why is hamas needed...ask yourself that...i agree with ghook on ths one...but there is no trust in the negoitations by either side...


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> I know, those terrorists who construct illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, annexed the Golan Heights, unjustly invaded Lebanon numerous times, used cluster munitions against the civilian population in Lebanon...oh. Wait. That was someone else around there.



So in '67 Israel should not have defended herself from Syria? The Golan Heights are strategic areas that gives Syria a huge advantage in any invasion. Fool me once ('48) shame on you! Fool me twice ('67) shame on you!

Oh those poor Lebanese citizens, when they do cross-border attacks, what do you say, probably you take your proud ignorant liberal ass and yell foul from your ivory tower. In '82 the Lebanese were allowing terrorist to attack Israel and in most cases promoting it! Israel like every country has a right to defend herself! In the 2nd Lebanese war after years of terrorist attack (take Kuntar - who killed a father in front of his 3 yr girl, before bashing her head in with the butt of his gun), they did a cross border war operation in which they killed a dozen or so IDF soldiers and captured 2 soldiers. Then the Hezbollah terrorist set up their operations with civilian populaces and even fired their missiles (which were specifically aimed at Israel civilians targers) off of apartment buildings. This way when Israel hits back there is collateral damage so that Hezbollah wins the propaganda war! In fact I think Israel restrainted herself. She should have reigned down on Lebanon 10 fold harder!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Anti-semitism = The unwillingness to bend over and kiss the ass of the Israeli government.



Antisemitism = people who are ignornantasCOAL!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

editec said:


> Carter, unlike most of our government, has some credibility in the Arab community.
> 
> He was, after all, the only POTUS to ever have forged a lasting peace accord between an Arab nation and Israel.


I 100% agree! 



> If we want peace in the Mid East we are going to have to talk to the enemy.  Carter is a man with the credibility, the patience and the interpersonal skills to do that


An ex-President who is rated by every historian as the in the top 5 worst Presidents. One who does have much respect or creditability with even liberal democrats is probably not the best choice! Obama seems to have universal charisma and love from all around the world, particularly amongst the Palestinians, hh yea I forgot to mention that he is the President elect, maybe he might be the best choice



> It's fairly obvious, after 50 years, that war isn't going to solve this problem.


Actually its 60 yrs, but yes status quo is not an option! Fighting isn't either!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> He's meeting with Hamas at the request of the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister.



After reading the article it sounded like the conversation was all about Shalit!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> How about this .. is it "antisemitic?"
> 
> "(We) are opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called "State of Israel"!
> 
> ...



YES, they are also self-hating douche-bags! You can find them in every group! In America we have a ton of them. They are Anti-american Americans!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> So is Ahmadinejad still anti-Semitic too, considering that they met with him?



WOW what a smart guy, so if Hitler took some pictures with some Jews would be be a friend of the Jews! Your ignorance is amazing!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> jews...even the importation of russian jews is not going to change that....
> 
> and more questions...why are any of your asses jewishs or islamic here?  why arent your asses in these countries you profess such great love and devotion too?  i love my fucking country and i am sick of both religions using us and killing us...if i felt there was a better country my ass would be there...so riddle me this...
> 
> ...



I will answer this highly arrogant question! Personally because I am America. I love my country. If anyone asks me what is your nationality I say American! They say no no, where are you originally from, meaning your ancestors? I repeat America, I am an American. I wouldn't have it any way. And guess what the vast vast vast vast majority of Americans of Jewish dissent would say they same things, they put America first and Israel 2nd! Are you also claiming that Jews have not don't anything for this country?


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the right of return must be given up by both sides for there to ever be peace....so are we giving these lands back to the native americans???? come on div



If the America Indians started shooting missiles at New York City or watched into crowded areas and blew up the place, would we do nothing? Would America say, well any reaction would be disproportionate so its best not to do anything? Absolutely not, we would attack with full force!


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 15, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> WOW what a smart guy, so if Hitler took some pictures with some Jews would be be a friend of the Jews! Your ignorance is amazing!


Hitler was a raving mad man and very anti-semitic.

Ahmadinejad on the other hand, is a friend of the Jews and one of the greatest leaders of our time!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 15, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> why is hamas needed...ask yourself that...i agree with ghook on ths one...but there is no trust in the negoitations by either side...



Little know fact about Hamas was Israel built them up! They supported them in the early years, because AraFATASS and his terrorist and corrupt PLO movement were welll corrupt terrorist. They saw Hamas as an alternative!


----------



## aztech (Dec 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Hitler was a raving mad man and very anti-semitic.
> 
> Ahmadinejad on the other hand, is a friend of the Jews and one of the greatest leaders of our time!



I read the first sentence and thought...wow Lunni has turned the corner.

Then I read the second one and realized, nope....he is still an idiot...anyone who can think that Ahmy is a great leader is off their head.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Different and you know it. They believe Israel shouldn't exist til the coming of the Messiah... It has nothing to do with wanting dead and subjugated jews.



Neither Carter or the majority of people who seek balance and peace in the ME also don't have anything to do with wanting dead and subjugated jews anywhere in the world .. that includes me.

I have no desire to see any harm or ill come to the jewish people at all whatsoever. Growing up in the sixties I am fully aware of the contributions of a great many jewish people to African-American struggles in this country, and in fact, Africans all over the world.

My problem is with the *government* of Israel .. and there are hundreds of organizations of jewish people who have the same problems with the Israeli government that I, Carter, and people all over the world do.

This has nothing to do with so-called "anti-semitism" and everything to do with the evils of the Israeli government and our unbalanced approach to the ME.

As here in this thread .. somehow we never get around to addressing the issues of the Israeli government because that conversation is always masked in the smoke and mirrors of "anti-semitism."


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Actually. I would believe Bin Laden before I would believe the CIA



So would I.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East.
> 
> Second only to Israel.
> 
> There are even Jews who serve in the Iranian government.



THAT I did not know.

Gotta do some digging .. but if that is indeed true ... WTF?


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> Antisemitism = people who are ignornantasCOAL!



Thanks for demonstrating the depth of your intellect .. but perhaps you should get off the high school computer before your teacher comes back.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> YES, they are also self-hating douche-bags! You can find them in every group! In America we have a ton of them. They are Anti-american Americans!



The question wasn't if some idiot would call these jews "douche-bags" .. while claiming someone else is anti-semitic .. which is dumb as fuck ..

The question was are they .. jews .. anti-semitic?


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> actually, no US money went to bin laden or the taliban
> but the lib morons will never let that lie go




As Gunny pointed out, you're incorrect. So you might want to pull in the anti "lib" posing. We used Afghanistan as a staging point for a proxy war with the Soviets.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 16, 2008)

Are you also claiming that Jews have not don't anything for this country?

oddly enough had i meant to say that...i would have said it....dont put words in my posts...or construct meanings that are not there.


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> The question wasn't if some idiot would call these jews "douche-bags" .. while claiming someone else is anti-semitic .. which is dumb as fuck ..
> 
> The question was are they .. jews .. anti-semitic?



You are far too smart, my friend, to engage in that type of low rhetoric.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> THAT I did not know.
> 
> Gotta do some digging .. but if that is indeed true ... WTF?


BAC the American media is nothing but lies.

     www,eldib.wordpress.com/2007/.../irans-happy-jews-a-big-problem-for-israel

Or just google Iranian Jews

There are 25,000 Iranian Jews who live peaceably in Iran with full civil rights.

Israel has tried to bribe them with money to leave Iran.

They have refused to leave saying they are happy in Iran.

This has been a great embrassement to Israel.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> You are far too smart, my friend, to engage in that type of low rhetoric.



I apologize.

Thank you


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> My problem is that he's already expressed a huge amount of anti-semitism....



Give me a break, Carter is the farthest thing from anti-semitic.  He's an appeasing fool, in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, but he's not racist in anyway.

But a naive idiot like Carter is far more dangerous than a crazy dictator.   Can't think of a dictator who created more problems for this country than Jimmy did when he was Pres.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 16, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> Can't think of a dictator who created more problems for this country than Jimmy did when he was Pres.


 George Bush is a 1,000X worse than Carter!!!


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> Give me a break, Carter's is the farthest thing from anti-semitic.  He's an appeasing fool, in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, but he's not racist in anyway.
> 
> But a naive idiot like Carter is far more dangerous than a crazy dictator.   Can't think of a dictator who created more problems for this country than Jimmy did when he was Pres.



Carter was a terrible president. I think we can both agree on that.

As for his anti-semitism. No... he wasn't an "appeaser"... 

did you read his book? Or at least the excerpts?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 16, 2008)

whatsa matter, jill?  The idea that jews are not spotlessly treating palis like human beings a little too much for your zionism?


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Neither Carter or the majority of people who seek balance and peace in the ME also don't have anything to do with wanting dead and subjugated jews anywhere in the world .. that includes me.
> 
> I have no desire to see any harm or ill come to the jewish people at all whatsoever. Growing up in the sixties I am fully aware of the contributions of a great many jewish people to African-American struggles in this country, and in fact, Africans all over the world.


Yet you try to deny them a home country! If history has shown us anything its that the Jews more than anyone need their own country as a safe haven!




> My problem is with the *government* of Israel .. and there are hundreds of organizations of jewish people who have the same problems with the Israeli government that I, Carter, and people all over the world do.


PLEASE! 99% of Jews support the state of Israel. Even agnostic Jews like myself! Sell your bullshit some other place!



> This has nothing to do with so-called "anti-semitism" and everything to do with the evils of the Israeli government and our unbalanced approach to the ME.
> 
> As here in this thread .. somehow we never get around to addressing the issues of the Israeli government because that conversation is always masked in the smoke and mirrors of "anti-semitism."


Sure it does! It has everything to do with the new anti-semitism! I call it the PC anti-semitism. If a coward, such as yourself, just came out and said they hate Jews, then they will be shunned and seen as men who like to walk around in PJ's and pointy hats! However, again cowards, like yourself, try to say they have nothing but love for the Jews, rather they are anti-zionist! Basically since your a coward you try to mask your anti-semitic beliefs in  PC anti-zionism!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> George Bush is a 1,000X worse than Carter!!!



1000x worse! 
Worse? I will give you that!


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> Sure it does! It has everything to do with the new anti-semitism! I call it the PC anti-semitism. If a coward, such as yourself, just came out and said they hate Jews, then they will be shunned and seen as men who like to walk around in PJ's and pointy hats! However, again cowards, like yourself, try to say they have nothing but love for the Jews, rather they are anti-zionist! Basically since your a coward you try to mask your anti-semitic beliefs in  PC anti-zionism!



Of course it does....



> Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:
> 
> 
> Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world.
> ...



Report on Global Anti-Semitism


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> THAT I did not know.
> 
> Gotta do some digging .. but if that is indeed true ... WTF?



What you don't know could fill a library!

The reason they have the 2nd most Jews is because every other Middle East country kicked them out, over 1 million at once! If they had no Israel, then they would have no place to go and would have been slaughtered!

Persia much to their credit did not do this, but in '48 and '67 when the explusions were made, the Jews had a in the Shah in Iran!


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 16, 2008)

Jews have only one answer for anyone who disagrees with them:  "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!!!

You could say Mr.Jew, "I agree with you 99.99% on the issue of Israel.

But because of that 0.01% Mr. Jew will scream in you face that you are "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!!!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> As Gunny pointed out, you're incorrect. So you might want to pull in the anti "lib" posing. We used Afghanistan as a staging point for a proxy war with the Soviets.



Just saw Charlie Wilson's War the other day! We definitely supplied them with missile launchers, anti tank weaponry and anti-aircraft weaponry, which is now being used against us! The hope was to make the war so costly to help bankrupt the USSR!


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> Just saw Charlie Wilson's War the other day! We definitely supplied them with missile launchers, anti tank weaponry and anti-aircraft weaponry, which is now being used against us! The hope was to make the war so costly to help bankrupt the USSR!



And, ultimately, we did bankrupt them.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Carter was a terrible president. I think we can both agree on that.
> 
> As for his anti-semitism. No... he wasn't an "appeaser"...
> 
> did you read his book? Or at least the excerpts?



Even zionists know Carter is NOT anti-semitic ..

*Carter's Apartheid book: Not anti-Semitic, but Not Good Either*

excerpts --

In more detail: 

The Good News - Jimmy Carter does not openly advocate destroying Israel. Quite the contrary. He writes: 

a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel. (p. 207)

Carter and Terror - Carter does not condone terror. I have seen this claim repeatedly, though nothing is cited from the book to prove it. I have been unable to find any place in this book where Jimmy Carter condones terror. His attitude is rather expressed as follows:

There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East: 

1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land... 

2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories. 

(pp 205-6) 

"Making all possible allowances, the impression I got from this book is that Mr. Carter has a worthy vision of peace for Israel and the Palestinians. He was overwhelmed by the historic magnitude of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which he helped to broker. He was convinced that he was on the way to resolving the Middle East dispute. Mr. Carter was therefore deeply disappointed and frustrated by the intransigence of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Subsequently, like all of us, he was deeply frustrated by the crash and burn of the Oslo process. He assumed that this must be due to Israeli intransigence. He modeled his views of all Israeli leaders on the behavior and policies of Begin and Shamir, and then proceeded to whack the facts into shape to fit this model, using an intellectual twelve pound sledge hammer. Instead of producing a work that could generate momentum for peace, Mr. Carter has produced another deadly weapon in the middle east war of words. His popularity will ensure the widespread absorption of the poison, and it will take much hard work to undo the damage he has done."

*ZioNation - Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log*
Carter's Apartheid book: Not anti-Semitic, but Not Good Either- Zionism-Israel Web Log

Calling everyone and anyone who disagrees with the policies of the Israeli government is as counter-productive as calling anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

Jimmy Carter is a good man who left the presidency and immediately went to work helping less fortunate people .. unlike Bill Clinton who immediately went to work helping himself.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> And, ultimately, we did bankrupt them.


And now the Islamists are using the same tactic to bankrupy the US


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> Yet you try to deny them a home country! If history has shown us anything its that the Jews more than anyone need their own country as a safe haven!



Neither Carter, nor I, nor a great many of those who understand the ME are trying to deny Israelis anything other than the "right" to the lands of other people .. and neither history nor common sense suggests that jews should occupy the lands of others and commit atrocities whiule in the act.



> PLEASE! 99% of Jews support the state of Israel. Even agnostic Jews like myself! Sell your bullshit some other place!



Fuck you .. I can post hundreds of organizations of jews who disagree.



> Sure it does! It has everything to do with the new anti-semitism! I call it the PC anti-semitism. If a coward, such as yourself, just came out and said they hate Jews, then they will be shunned and seen as men who like to walk around in PJ's and pointy hats! However, again cowards, like yourself, try to say they have nothing but love for the Jews, rather they are anti-zionist! Basically since your a coward you try to mask your anti-semitic beliefs in  PC anti-zionism!



Again, fuck you .. you're just too fucking brain-dead to challenge legitimate questions about the issue.

The good news about being me is that I don't give a fuck about what you or anybody else thinks of what I believe. I'm free to state exactly what I believe without consideration of idiots like you .. and, what would there be to be afraid of? Hmmm. You?


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> And now the Islamists are using the same tactic to bankrupy the US



Absolutely correct.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> Of course it does....
> 
> 
> 
> Report on Global Anti-Semitism



That's bullshit.

What you're suggesting is the whole world hates jews .. just because they're jews and nothing the Israeli government has done has anything to do with it.

Being in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in history has nothing to do with it?

That is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> BAC the American media is nothing but lies.
> 
> www,eldib.wordpress.com/2007/.../irans-happy-jews-a-big-problem-for-israel
> 
> ...



What is your point with this! Are you trying to say that there are 25K Iranian Jews in a country of 70 million, therefore, no Iranian can be anti-semitic! That no Iranian President who called Israel a corpse and stated his desire to wipe Israel off the map and called the Holocaust a myth can be antisemitic! Your logicl is lacking.

By the way I have acknowledged this from first hand accounts!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/923080-post38.html



> *Quoted by: GHook93*
> Many people over look the fact that Iranians and Persian have been by far the best people ever to the Jews!
> 
> After the Babolyians conquerred Israel, destroyed the first great temple and expelled the Jews, it was Persia, Cyrus the Great, the help the Jews take back Israel, rebuild the temple, to which part of it still stands today, and get basically a self-ruling government back! In fact around this time Jews made up btw 10-20% of the Persian Empire
> ...


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Jews have only one answer for anyone who disagrees with them:  "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!!!
> 
> You could say Mr.Jew, "I agree with you 99.99% on the issue of Israel.
> 
> But because of that 0.01% Mr. Jew will scream in you face that you are "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!!!



LOLOLOLOL 
You are incorrect! If a person agree with Israel 99.99% of the time then they would be much more pro-Israel then I am.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 16, 2008)

I support Jimmy Carter in his efforts to broker peace in the Middle East.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

I will agree that he is not anti-semitic, he was just a bad President, so he is not the best to be doing the negotiations now! Honestly. Israel, the Putin-in-your-ass, Obama, the New Israeli PM, the Hamas PM in Syria (his name evades me right now), Mubarak, Abbas, the De Facto Hamas PM in Gaza, and the Speaker of the House of the Hamas Palestinian Parliament should be sitting at the table, not a washed up 1 term ex-President.

And his title did make senses! If a 2 state solution does not occur, then everntually a 1 state apartheid Israel would be the outcome!



BlackAsCoal said:


> Even zionists know Carter is NOT anti-semitic ..
> 
> *Carter's Apartheid book: Not anti-Semitic, but Not Good Either*
> 
> ...


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> And now the Islamists are using the same tactic to bankrupy the US



Yea because the mortgage and credit meltdown has nothing to do with it! Get a grip on reality smart guy!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Absolutely correct.



Filling the library again!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I support Jimmy Carter in his efforts to broker peace in the Middle East.



I support the effort, actually I applaud the effort, but he is the wrong man for the job! Because he is ranked as one of the worst Presidents ever, by D's and R's alike, he has no creditability or respect in America or by intellectuals. Since many in Israel don't like him he has no respect there either! I don't think the Islamist respect him that much either. His persona doesn't create demand for respect, regardless of his past! 

Honestly, my great hope for peace lies in Obama!


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> I will agree that he is not anti-semitic, he was just a bad President, so he is not the best to be doing the negotiations now! Honestly. Israel, the Putin-in-your-ass, Obama, the New Israeli PM, the Hamas PM in Syria (his name evades me right now), Mubarak, Abbas, the De Facto Hamas PM in Gaza, and the Speaker of the House of the Hamas Palestinian Parliament should be sitting at the table, not a washed up 1 term ex-President.
> 
> And his title did make senses! If a 2 state solution does not occur, then everntually a 1 state apartheid Israel would be the outcome!



I agree that his title makes sense.

There is very little I agree with or have in common with xionists. I posted their thoughts to demonstrate that even they don't see Carter as anti-semitic.

Carter being a "bad president" has very little to do with his negotiating skills or the respect the rest of the world may have for him. If the Israelis asked him to negotiate, then obviously he's respected by both sides .. a rarity for an American president.

In order to get all parties to the table requires negotiations and diplomacy .. and "bad president" or not, Carter has a history of being good at negotiations and diplomacy in this region.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> I support the effort, actually I applaud the effort, but he is the wrong man for the job! Because he is ranked as one of the worst Presidents ever, but D and R alike, he has no creditability or respect in America or by intellectuals. Since many in Israel don't like him he has no respect there either! I don't the Islamist respect him that much either. I does demand respect from his persona!
> 
> Honestly, my great hope for peace lies in Obama!



Your comments are groundless.

Did the Israelis ask Carter to negotiate?

Proves they respect him.

WHY did they ask HIM to negotiate?

Because they know he's respected by arabs.

If Obama is relying on great speeches to mindfuck arabs they way he pulled his mindfuck on Americans, he's in for an awakening.


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 16, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Being in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in history has nothing to do with it?



wish we would violate some UN Resolutions, group is a useless collection of numb nut bureaucrats and foreign dictators

its basically a public relations forum that allows dictators to condemn democracies, yet is too impotent to stop wars like Iraq, no sound reason for it to exist anymore


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Mr. Jew will scream in you face that you are "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!!!



I dunno SM, maybe if you stopped praising a group that kills Jews they might not think you were anti-semitic

you don't see rednecks in the Klan take offense when someone calls them racist, if you think groups who kill Jews are Ok, then just admit you don't like members of that religion, and stop being such a wimp about it


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 16, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> If a 2 state solution does not occur



2 state solution would last about a week, at best, if it ever occurred

really need a 3 state solution, with Gaza and West Bank separate, just as Britain was forced into a 3 state solution in India by separating Bangladesh from Pakistan, yet I find the Israeli leadership acts like a bunch of wusses when it comes to presenting ideas that might offend their financial backers in the U.S.

Israel's problem right now though isn't the Jihadists, most rational people know those suicide bombers are crazy and don't deserve shit, but rather the settlers who somehow think they can outnumber Palestinians in the WB or that they have some biblical claim on the land.   Israel's biggest problem is its own right-wing freaks, not the jihadist lunatics.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 17, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Your comments are groundless.
> 
> Did the Israelis ask Carter to negotiate?
> 
> ...



LOL, he is respected by no one! Like it or not your idol is seen as a failed President, that goes a long way towards other around the world taking him seriously!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 17, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 2 state solution would last about a week, at best, if it ever occurred


I have no illussions that after Palestine is created a war would probably break out! However, after the war and a little time I am optimissitic that peace can be had! A 1 state solution is a far worst scenario, see Yugoslavia!



> really need a 3 state solution, with Gaza and West Bank separate, just as Britain was forced into a 3 state solution in India by separating Bangladesh from Pakistan, yet I find the Israeli leadership acts like a bunch of wusses when it comes to presenting ideas that might offend their financial backers in the U.S.


Bangladeshians are a total different race than Pakistanis, that is why the Bangladeshians fought for their independence from Pakistan. Gazastan and PLO/West Bank are separated by ideology not race!




> Israel's problem right now though isn't the Jihadists, most rational people know those suicide bombers are crazy and don't deserve shit, but rather the settlers who somehow think they can outnumber Palestinians in the WB or that they have some biblical claim on the land.   Israel's biggest problem is its own right-wing freaks, not the jihadist lunatics.


Israel's biggest problem is the ones in power in the Palestinian side are pragmatist that at the moment hold onto irrational demands and are committed to taking all of Israel!


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 17, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> wish we would violate some UN Resolutions, group is a useless collection of numb nut bureaucrats and foreign dictators
> 
> its basically a public relations forum that allows dictators to condemn democracies, yet is too impotent to stop wars like Iraq, no sound reason for it to exist anymore



Yet Bush and his horde of lunatics NEEDED UN Resolutions before they felt comfortable going into Iraq and mass-murdering their people.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 17, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> LOL, he is respected by no one! Like it or not your idol is seen as a failed President, that goes a long way towards other around the world taking him seriously!



Noted that you avoided addressing the questions .. which made your assertions absolutely foolish and simply the rantings of a gumpy.

People who aren't respected aren't asked to intervene.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 19, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> So in '67 Israel should not have defended herself from Syria? The Golan Heights are strategic areas that gives Syria a huge advantage in any invasion. Fool me once ('48) shame on you! Fool me twice ('67) shame on you!



The Golan Heights are not of any particular strategic value to Israel, and cause Syria to support organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, because the Syrian Army is not powerful enough to contend with the IDF. 

Syria has repeatedly offered a peace treaty in return for the lands that Yitzhak Rabin promised them that were never delivered due to his assassination. 



GHook93 said:


> Oh those poor Lebanese citizens, when they do cross-border attacks, what do you say, probably you take your proud ignorant liberal ass and yell foul from your ivory tower. In '82 the Lebanese were allowing terrorist to attack Israel and in most cases promoting it! Israel like every country has a right to defend herself! In the 2nd Lebanese war after years of terrorist attack (take Kuntar - who killed a father in front of his 3 yr girl, before bashing her head in with the butt of his gun), they did a cross border war operation in which they killed a dozen or so IDF soldiers and captured 2 soldiers. Then the Hezbollah terrorist set up their operations with civilian populaces and even fired their missiles (which were specifically aimed at Israel civilians targers) off of apartment buildings. This way when Israel hits back there is collateral damage so that Hezbollah wins the propaganda war! In fact I think Israel restrainted herself. She should have reigned down on Lebanon 10 fold harder!



I am not a liberal. I am an anarchist. Do you regard the kidnapping of a few to be rationale for the invasion of a sovereign nation? Israel kidnapped a doctor and his brother, Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, from Gaza, simply because they were the sons of a Hamas activist, without any proof that they were involved in any criminal or terrorist activities. Is your position then that the inhabitants of Gaza should invade Israel and use cluster munitions on civilian areas, as was the case with Israel's invasion of Lebanon?

UN envoy: Israel broke int'l law in war | Israel | Jerusalem Post



> A UN envoy for children in conflict said Thursday she had been horrified by the destruction of a Lebanese village besieged by IDF troops last year, and that many of Israel's actions during the war against Hizbullah had violated international law.
> 
> The UN's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflicts, Radhika Coomaraswamy, told reporters she would discuss Israel's conduct in the Second Lebanon War when she meets its government on the next stop of her Middle East tour.
> 
> ...


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 19, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> The Golan Heights are not of any particular strategic value to Israel, and cause Syria to support organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, because the Syrian Army is not powerful enough to contend with the IDF.


LOL, when you make absolutely uneducated comments like this I do not know why I even bother with you!




> Syria has repeatedly offered a peace treaty in return for the lands that Yitzhak Rabin promised them that were never delivered due to his assassination.


! Your a propaganda machine and a pretty piss poor one. They house people terrorist that plan attacks against Israel. They allie themselves with Hezbollah, because they believe and the Lebanon is part of Syria!

Syria has the burden of proof to show peace which they fail to do. Golan heights give the high ground to any Syrian invasion. Furthermore, it allows Israel to be alerted to any movements coming from Syria. I personally say hell to Syria, you attacked Israel 3 times now go fuck yourself, Golan is Israels! You might say that is illogical, but your a self-proclaimed anarchist and anti-semite, so logic is not your strong suit. So if you don't like it, then you can go fuck yourself!




> I am not a liberal.


Maybe not, but you share the liberal mentality of appeasing and apologizing and simply trying to ignore the threat of Islamic terror. Basically you share their cowardness! 



> I am an anarchist.


No in other words your an  and a retard! Good to know!



> Do you regard the kidnapping of a few to be rationale for the invasion of a sovereign nation? Israel kidnapped a doctor and his brother, Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, from Gaza, simply because they were the sons of a Hamas activist, without any proof that they were involved in any criminal or terrorist activities. Is your position then that the inhabitants of Gaza should invade Israel and use cluster munitions on civilian areas, as was the case with Israel's invasion of Lebanon?


YES! If the Mexican government had committed numerous terrorist attacks, including bombing and missile attacks against Israel over the years and then committed a high profile kidnapping, all while preaching genocidal dreams of America. Then I would wholeheartedly expect and call for a similar smacking of the Mexicans.

Israel is in a much different scenario. All her neighbors have called for her destructions. All her neighbors are much larger (except for Lebanon) in land and population. If Israel loses one war, just one, we see the 2nd Holocaust! I know your a huge coward, so showing weakness is nothing new to you, but if Israel showed any type of weakness, her enemies would get enboldened and exploit this weakness!

So Yes if was justifiable. The Hezbollah terrorist picked the battle grounds. They picked to situate their missile launching pads on civilian apartment buildings in civilians areas etc. In fact I fault Israel for giving warning to these areas before they were going to attack! I fault for not taking it hard at Hezbollah!


----------



## jillian (Dec 19, 2008)

The Golan Heights have no strategic value to Israel?!?!?! Did he really say that???? Spoken like someone who's never stood in the Syrian bunkers there that aim right down into the kibbutzim.

*rolls eyes*

And it doesn't matter. Syria attacked. Israel won land.

Funny how that works. But then again, anarchists always prefer the bomb throwers, no matter how pointless or unjustified.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 19, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Yet Bush and his horde of lunatics NEEDED UN Resolutions before they felt comfortable going into Iraq and mass-murdering their people.



Hey smart guy! 
First, Sadam was mass-murdering the Iraqis way before we got there
Second, the vast majority of the killing had been Iraqi on Iraqi secular kills.
Third, believe it or not but Iraq is in a very good position now. Back to where she was before Sadam coup their former President and bankrupted the country by invading Iran!


----------



## editec (Dec 19, 2008)

GHook93 said:


> Third, believe it or not but Iraq is in a very good position now. Back to where she was before Sadam coup their former President and bankrupted the country by invading Iran!


 
Where's my shoes?

I feel the urge to throw them.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 19, 2008)

jillian said:


> The Golan Heights have no strategic value to Israel?!?!?! Did he really say that???? Spoken like someone who's never stood in the Syrian bunkers there that aim right down into the kibbutzim.
> 
> *rolls eyes*
> 
> ...



It is funny that all the anarchist I ever run across on these boards say they are against all government in any form. Yet they choose to pick on 2 America and especially Israel, while leaving save very tyranical governments!  They cry major foul when Israel defends herself, no addressing the fact that if there was no government then rape, murder and theft would be a common daily experience all over the globe!


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Where's my shoes?
> 
> I feel the urge to throw them.



I have said the war was a mistake, we should not have gone in it Iraq was not a threat to us and it was and is too costly dollar-wise! We have other pressing problem to address. However, you either have to be a hopeless and clueless liberal or highly uninformed to not realize that Iraq is surprisingly in a 100 fold better situation then she was in before Iraq couped the former President and that America-Iraq relations are better than they have ever been! I still don't think that can justify the reason for going in! But please do be so liberally blind that you can't address the facts on the ground. Even your Mesa has acknowledged this!


----------

