Jimmy Carter's War on Terror

[RSLudlum]

Southern Avenger's commentary on Jimmy Carter's dealings with Hamas. He asks what's the difference between 'collateral damage' and 'victims of terrorist attacks'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX-YYGNAUj8

 

[raiha]

He gets it right yet again The S.A.

 

[scipio337]

What's the difference? Does that question even merit a response? Have either of you served in combat?

Carter should have stuck to building houses. Maybe there are a few families of a Hamas shahid that could use his services.

 

[Kraig]

What's the difference? Does that question even merit a response? Have either of you served in combat?

Carter should have stuck to building houses. Maybe there are a few families of a Hamas shahid that could use his services.

You find it absurd? What is the difference between 9/11 and the two atomic weapons we dropped on japan? The 9/11 attack killed thousands of innocent civilians, had a negative impact on our economy, and scared the fuck out of us. The bombs on japan killed thousands of innocent civilians, had a negative impact on their economy, and scared the fuck out of them - all on much larger scale of course.

Does this make you feel threatened in some way?

 

[jmdrake]

While I'm no fan of Carter, talking with Hamas is what one former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad advocates.

http://hoosierinva.blogspot.com/2008/02/former-mossad-chief-advocates-talks.html

Not that I trust Mossad.

http://internationalbastard.blog.com/1624036/

And don't forget, the Palestinians did ELECT Hamas to represent them. So much for the fallacy that "democracies don't attack each other".

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[scipio337]

You find it absurd? What is the difference between 9/11 and the two atomic weapons we dropped on japan? The 9/11 attack killed thousands of innocent civilians, had a negative impact on our economy, and scared the fuck out of us. The bombs on japan killed thousands of innocent civilians, had a negative impact on their economy, and scared the fuck out of them - all on much larger scale of course.

Does this make you feel threatened in some way?

Absolutely absurd, to the point where I almost considered it parody. Never mind the fact of two nation-states in a declared war, the concept of "total war", the validity of those two Japanese cities as military targets, etc, etc, etc.

By your yardstick, every single bombing campaign with civillian casualties, in every war was an "act of terrorism".

I can't conflate the two.

 

[Kraig]

Absolutely absurd, to the point where I almost considered it parody. Never mind the fact of two nation-states in a declared war, the concept of "total war", the validity of those two Japanese cities as military targets, etc, etc, etc.

By your yardstick, every single bombing campaign with civillian casualties, in every war was an "act of terrorism".

I can't conflate the two.

I didn't condemn the use of bombing cities during open warfare, I didn't express an opinion at all. All I pointed out that both acts are indeed very similar, they both have the immediate goal of killing civilians and scaring the general population.

You have rationalized that we had the moral right to do this, because we were two nation states at war, and because you say that they were valid military targets. I would like to know what standards you use to determine if something is a civilian or military target, it seems to me that a populated city would be the very definition of a civilian target. Sure there were probably military elements in those cities, but an atomic bomb is hardly the best method to target them.

So yes, terrorism and attacking civilian targets purposefully are entirely the same thing in many aspects. The only real difference is that one is done during a declared war and the other is done when war is not possible. You have to ask, if a group of people is completely unable to defend themselves militarily, is it wrong for them to use other means? I personally find declaring war to be irrelevant to killing civilians. I'm sure the people who died in New York and Japan wouldn't care if war was declared or not, the end result for them is quite the same, that's what I'm trying to point out to you. Debating about the morality of doing such things and deciding under what circumstances they might become the right thing to do is an entirely different discussion. I was hoping to get into that discussion, but I doubt you do.

 

[Ozwest]

My 77 year old Mom is travelling back to Germany in a couple of weeks to visit the graves of her family.

Miraculousily she managed to survive the bombing of Dresden.

Pity about the rest of the family...

 

[tmosley]

Absolutely absurd, to the point where I almost considered it parody. Never mind the fact of two nation-states in a declared war, the concept of "total war", the validity of those two Japanese cities as military targets, etc, etc, etc.

By your yardstick, every single bombing campaign with civillian casualties, in every war was an "act of terrorism".

I can't conflate the two.

Actually, those two cities had been left mostly undamaged by the war simply because they didn't have any major military value. We dropped the bomb there to show that we could kill anyone, anywhere, and you couldn't avoid it by going to non-military target areas.

This is terrorism on a TRUELY global scale. It's also arguably justified, as it probably saved many more lives on both sides by getting them to surrender.

Make no mistake--Israel is, and always has been, a fascist, apartheid state. They don't want to integrate because they would lose power, just like the whites did in South Africa when they gave up on their racist policies. If they used proportional response to terrorist threats, they would be a lot better off (and they would stop making more terrorists by their actions). Instead, they have to be "tough", and lob missiles into civilian areas and invade neighboring countries, etc.

Of course, America is guilty of the same thing, and on a larger scale, no less.

 

[Kraig]

Actually, those two cities had been left mostly undamaged by the war simply because they didn't have any major military value. We dropped the bomb there to show that we could kill anyone, anywhere, and you couldn't avoid it by going to non-military target areas.

This is terrorism on a TRUELY global scale. It's also arguably justified, as it probably saved many more lives on both sides by getting them to surrender.

Make no mistake--Israel is, and always has been, a fascist, apartheid state. They don't want to integrate because they would lose power, just like the whites did in South Africa when they gave up on their racist policies. If they used proportional response to terrorist threats, they would be a lot better off (and they would stop making more terrorists by their actions). Instead, they have to be "tough", and lob missiles into civilian areas and invade neighboring countries, etc.

Of course, America is guilty of the same thing, and on a larger scale, no less.

Some people are going to take this as typical anti-American rhetoric by thinking that this means we are just as guilty as the terrorists are, that is not the case. All this means is that we need to address their core reasons for wanting to attack us, not their chosen methods of doing so. The "War on Terror" is a war on a method of warfare, it does not address the reasons and causes for the warfare. This is convenient for us, because it rationalizes full scale warfare which we are quite good at, and invalidates their chosen method of fighting us, which is also the only method available to them.

We cannot simply assume they are wrong because of how they choose to attack us, we need to look at their reasons for wanting to attack us make a decision based on that. Rather than looking solely at the 9/11 event, we need to look at the history that may or may not have motivated them to perform such an act. This is is what the current administration has failed to do, this is also Ron Paul's stance on the issue.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I am curious why the strong feelings against former President Carter. He has tried to do more good in the world since leaving the presidency than any other president.

 

[scipio337]

Actually, those two cities had been left mostly undamaged by the war simply because they didn't have any major military value. We dropped the bomb there to show that we could kill anyone, anywhere, and you couldn't avoid it by going to non-military target areas.

This is terrorism on a TRUELY global scale. It's also arguably justified, as it probably saved many more lives on both sides by getting them to surrender.

Make no mistake--Israel is, and always has been, a fascist, apartheid state. They don't want to integrate because they would lose power, just like the whites did in South Africa when they gave up on their racist policies. If they used proportional response to terrorist threats, they would be a lot better off (and they would stop making more terrorists by their actions). Instead, they have to be "tough", and lob missiles into civilian areas and invade neighboring countries, etc.

Of course, America is guilty of the same thing, and on a larger scale, no less.

Not so. If the targets were chosen for pure terror effect, why wasn't a larger city, like Yokohama, or Tokoyo, or one with more cultural signifigance, like Kyoto chosen? You're also forgetting the Potsdam Declaration. Have you ever heard Hirohito's "surrender" speech? It was hardly such. The attempted coup afterwards? Do you think these were a people who were ready to roll over?

The rest of your post is crap.

 

[Zolah]

Some people are going to take this as typical anti-American rhetoric by thinking that this means we are just as guilty as the terrorists are, that is not the case. All this means is that we need to address their core reasons for wanting to attack us, not their chosen methods of doing so. The "War on Terror" is a war on a method of warfare, it does not address the reasons and causes for the warfare. This is convenient for us, because it rationalizes full scale warfare which we are quite good at, and invalidates their chosen method of fighting us, which is also the only method available to them.

We cannot simply assume they are wrong because of how they choose to attack us, we need to look at their reasons for wanting to attack us make a decision based on that. Rather than looking solely at the 9/11 event, we need to look at the history that may or may not have motivated them to perform such an act. This is is what the current administration has failed to do, this is also Ron Paul's stance on the issue.

Great post, you put it well

 

[american empire]

View Post
Some people are going to take this as typical anti-American rhetoric by thinking that this means we are just as guilty as the terrorists are, that is not the case. All this means is that we need to address their core reasons for wanting to attack us, not their chosen methods of doing so. The "War on Terror" is a war on a method of warfare, it does not address the reasons and causes for the warfare. This is convenient for us, because it rationalizes full scale warfare which we are quite good at, and invalidates their chosen method of fighting us, which is also the only method available to them.

We cannot simply assume they are wrong because of how they choose to attack us, we need to look at their reasons for wanting to attack us make a decision based on that. Rather than looking solely at the 9/11 event, we need to look at the history that may or may not have motivated them to perform such an act. This is is what the current administration has failed to do, this is also Ron Paul's stance on the issue.

agreed great post....

president carter whatever his past has shown one thing that the people on the other side of the table are NOT savages as they are potrayed with bombs strapped to their ass all the time....they too are people with families and have lot to gain from peace...by talking to hamas and you can get more done than talking to mehmoud abbas because hamas was elected and represents a majority of palestinians.....hamas has come out and said it would agree to sign a peace treaty and recognize israel on certain terms...is this not more than an advancement in terms of talks...much more than that useless condi could do...i dont think its very hard to get a peace settlement if both sides are willing and we get our ass out of it...because even an idiot knows whose side we are on....and i dont blame the palestinians of being suspicious of us...

 

[Cowlesy]

agreed great post....

president carter whatever his past has shown one thing that the people on the other side of the table are NOT savages as they are potrayed with bombs strapped to their ass all the time....they too are people with families and have lot to gain from peace...by talking to hamas and you can get more done than talking to mehmoud abbas because hamas was elected and represents a majority of palestinians.....hamas has come out and said it would agree to sign a peace treaty and recognize israel on certain terms...is this not more than an advancement in terms of talks...much more than that useless condi could do...i dont think its very hard to get a peace settlement if both sides are willing and we get our ass out of it...because even an idiot knows whose side we are on....and i dont blame the palestinians of being suspicious of us...

Great post above.

I'm not a student of Carter's presidency, so I am by no means qualified to comment on it, but to be perfectly honest I always thought he was some terrorist sympathizer, UNTIL Congressman Paul opened my eyes and jarred my neo-conned brain into thinking again.

It's sad we can't just box-the-ears of the nation and yell "WAKE UP AND THINK" when looking at all the issues going on today.

 

[asgardshill]

I am curious why the strong feelings against former President Carter. He has tried to do more good in the world since leaving the presidency than any other president.

Most of my ill feelings about former President Carter were due to the cock-up he made of his Presidency, not what he did afterward. Of course, with his latest ham-fisted malaprops in the Middle East, my opinion is rapidly changing.

 

[tekrunner]

Word on the street is Carter sold is his soul to the teachers union in exchange for nationalizing the department of education. Anybody have more info on this?

I think it's great he's bashing the zionists though, they've had it coming. I don't think it's wrong to recognize people who use religion to take advantage of other people.

 

[american empire]

why dont we look past all this nonsense ....of not talking to hamas?...

has this gained anything?.....its like saying im going to ignore you because youve been bad boy...but the bad boy is not suddenly going to go away once you start ignoring....hamas is a POLITICAL reality who is part of the govt....I dont see why condi can wish to achieve talks on "peace" ( a joke in itself) if she berates anyone who talks to them .....especially a former US president ( dont know his legacy either)......its absurd...

the norwegians brokered a peace deal between the tamils and srilankan forces.....although like any peace deal its fragile but the fact that you can talk to "terrorists/freedom fightors/insurgents" has been proven in the past...would condi care to tell me Fatah's past when she talks to Mehmud abbas...or does she assume every american is a dumbass to assume that they too will believe fatah is "moderate"....

again my anger is not directed to the administration but us imbeciles who dont wake up and see these cronies laughing at us...for our ignorance...