It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jimmy Carter to Meet Hamas

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


No, I'm not American, but I'm old enough to remember the hate mongering face of John Foster Dulles on a B/W television set.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
It's no surprise to me that the worst President in US history is also the worst acting ex-President in US history.

Jimmy Carter has no right to take on his own foreign policy initiative. It was bad enough when he was meeting with people like Castro and Chavez. But it's even worse that he is actually meeting with a terrorist organization. What's next? Playing 18-holes with bin Laden?

Although nowhere near as bad, President Clinton has hardly conducted himself properly, either. But at least he's not going around and schmoozing with dictators and terrorists. These two men have given no regard to the unspoken rules regarding ex-Presidents.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Jimmy Carter was one of the greatest US presidents of all times ...



You seriously need to read this and this .

It’s Carter’s fault that we are having problems with Iran. To quote from this source - "As a result of Carter’s withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East."

Upcoming war with Iran = Jimmy Carter's legacy



[edit on 4/11/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Sorry, you are wrong. Any upcoming war with Iran will be the bankers legacy=Rockefeller and Chase Manhatten.

Carter was standing firm not to let the shah into the US. Eventually under the disguise of humanitarian reasons he was lured by Rockefeller to let him in for medical treatment. Which triggered the hostage crises.

You can read it here.
David Rockefeller & October Surprise Case



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
reply to post by centurion1211
 


No, I'm not American, but I'm old enough to remember the hate mongering face of John Foster Dulles on a B/W television set.


What ???

Well, I actually do remember the Carter presidency. Things like losing a job due to 20% inflation while Carter's cronies had fun rolling beer cans down the aisles of Air Force One. And his brother Billy (a "special ambassador" at that time) getting caught taking a piss off the roof of the State Department. The economy was trashed, the military was gutted, but the bleeding heart libs loved him anyway because he said things like he "lusted in his heart" while reading Playboy magazine. All fluff and no substance such as is required to lead a great nation.

I'm assuming that you have expertise in other subjects, but obviously not the one on this thread.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


There was a global recession at the time, lots of people in Denmark lost their jobs too --and their homes as well.

I can see from your description of the Carter party, that the masters since have tighten the strings attached the puppet.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

U.S., Israel Criticize Carter Plans to See Hamas U.S., Israel Criticize Carter Plans to See Hamas

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:34 PM

WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it had advised former President Jimmy Carter against meeting the leader of Hamas in Syria next week, saying it went against U.S. policy of isolating the militant group.


Carter plans to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan during a nine-day trip due to start on Sunday but gave no details of specific meetings.


"This is a study mission and our purpose is not to negotiate but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East," the Carter Center said in a statement.


"Our delegation has considerable experience in the region, and we go there with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties," it said.

Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, discussed with the State Department's point person on Israeli-Palestinian issues, David Welch, his plans to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, but the department said it went against U.S. policy.


"We counseled against it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.


www.newsmax.com...

all hell is breaking loose over this...................



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Al Gore Peace Prize must be eating at someone's *ss. Jimmy, get over it. Your still currently the only living President who has one. Al was only a VP.

I had high expectations that Bill Clinton would take over Carter's place the the best ex-president. Carter just keeps setting the bar higher and higher.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Give it a few years and you'll also see that his houses will also fail to stand the test of time and weather as compared to the others built around them.


As a carpenter, a landlord, and a restorer of historic structures...

I couldn't agree more; habitat homes are cardboard boxes wrapped plastic bags and weighted with disproportionate mortgages; much like the modern suburban McMansion.

I find the greatest hypocrisy in habitat homes is their claim to use "locally available materials"

...imported from International McIndustry by the local lowes and home depot.

Sri Oracle



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
You knee jerk right wingers are such a joke I tell ya.

Like it or not Hamas is a power in the region and like it or not unless you kill all of them and their followers if there is to be any lasting peace in Palestine they will have to be engaged in one way or the other, the same is true of Hezbullah... if the Palestinian Authority had not proven so ineffective and corrupt neither of the other organizations would never have had a chance.

The whole problem in Iraq is our failure to engage the powers in the region including Syria and Iran. Like it or not, they are there and they were there before we ever dreamed of invading and they will be there long after we leave.

The refusal to engage them in at least some form of dialog is just plain stupid and if the idiots in the bush administration refuse to, then my hat is off to Carter for at the very least making the effort.

And as for his talks... don't even think that as a former president, they aren't sanctioned at least implicitly by the very fact that he is having them. It has been approved by the State dept at the very least, if not by bush minor himself... even if they never own up to it... or it would not be happening.






[edit on 12-4-2008 by grover]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


What a crock.

The idea of someone with even half a conscience in power must really bug you guys


BTW, are you aware that the "Reagan military buildup" you guys love to talk up actually began under Carter? I realize they don't mention it in the rightwing propaganda rags, but look at the FY defense budgets (increased every year under Carter) and at programs like the F-117 & even the B-2 - all Carter-era programs. Not that I would want to ruin your ideologically "corrected" version of history.

Carter was by no means an ideal President, but compared to your guy Bush, history will see his administration as a shining success. At least the guy had some kind of principles beyond the robotic & demented thirst for global power.

You rightwingers are so pathetically & obsessively dishonest.

It's like trying to have a rational discussion with Osama Bin Laden - you filter everything through your ideology, you are utterly incapable of stepping outside the boundaries of what the Coulter/Limbaugh loony fringe cult says is ideologically correct.

I used to think doctrinaire Marxists & goofy left wingers were impossible to actually talk to - but you guys make them seem perfectly reasonable & sane


[snip]

 


Please review these links, especially Section 2 of the T&Cs:

Courtesy Is Mandatory.

Terms & Conditions Of Use.


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.





[edit on 13/4/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


I cant make up my mind, wether its good or bad.
He's an idiot, an x-american president is just too good a temptation, and to be visiting Hamas? wether the council he meets with is neutral or not, too many hamas militia will gain the exact information it needs, if it were to kidnap him, and demand israel out of palestine.

what would we do in that scenario?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by centurion1211
 



BTW, are you aware that the "Reagan military buildup" you guys love to talk up actually began under Carter? I realize they don't mention it in the rightwing propaganda rags, but look at the FY defense budgets (increased every year under Carter) and at programs like the F-117 & even the B-2 - all Carter-era programs. Not that I would want to ruin your ideologically "corrected" version of history.

[snip]

 


Please review these links, especially Section 2 of the T&Cs:

Courtesy Is Mandatory.

Terms & Conditions Of Use.


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


[edit on 13/4/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



You're the one needing the history refresher.

Those programs were not begun under Carter, but before his presidency. Research your history again and you will find that Carter was under major criticism for gutting the military in a leftest spasm of post-viet nam reactions to that war. Now the stealth programs were kept secret ---- until, as you've now probably guessed ---- Carter desperately needed something on his watch to make him seem more pro-military. That's why Carter made those programs public.

The public was amazed by the stealth planes, but after the terrible economy and the iran hostage failures, nothing could save Carter in the following election. Sorry if your guy Carter doesn't come off looking too great - then or now. Do you thnk that I - or anyone else - is proud of the Reagan stories about him falling asleep in meetings or his wife consulting an astrologer? But history is history - warts and all.


Side note: Carter learned the importance of adopting some conservative values such as being pro-military and pro-gun ownership too late, Hillary is making the switch as we watch from pro-gun ban to pro-gun, and O(bs)ama has yet to learn it, judging by his latest gaffe - saying that (I guess "typical white") people are only pro-gun and dislike illegal immigrants, etc. because they don't have jobs.


Remember that I predicted on another one of my threads that Hillary would have the dem nomination handed to her in the end ...



[edit on 4/13/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
If I would have known he was going to be on ABC This Week with Stephanopolis, I would have tried to get the vid. Absolutely classic, imo. He was basically like, [ Well, I don't give a crap what anyone says, I'm going to meet with Hamas ]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


May be the gov would use it as more reason to ramp up the war front in the middle east. I doubt it will happen.

The ME does seem to be a bit of a 'fixer upper'. Not saying folks like the US military have not help to level some of it. Jimmy could put his habitat skill to work over there and put up a few buildings during his stay.

I predict nothing fruitful will come of his trip.

[edit on 4/13/2008 by roadgravel]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
if it were to kidnap him, and demand israel out of palestine. what would we do in that scenario?


Let them keep him. Maybe he'd learn something about Hamas and what they, and all radical Islamic terrorists, want. He's just a useful idiot to them. If they kidnapped him ... I say - let them keep him. He'd be THEIR problem then!


He puts himself in this situation by ignorning the State Department and the elected Administration. He puts himself in this position by ignorning the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization. If he gets nailed .. it's his fault. Like I said before - I don't want to go to WWIII over useful idiot Carter going off on his own to hug a terrorist.


Originally posted by roadgravel
I predict nothing fruitful will come of his trip.

Unless, as Agi8dChop brought up - Carter gets himself kidnapped by Hamas. Then the useful thing would be that he might actually learn what Hamas really is. Painful lesson, but one that Carter seems to need.


Originally posted by xmotex
You rightwingers are so pathetically & obsessively dishonest.


You mean unlike John 'WINTER SOLDIER' Kerry, who had Christmas in Cambodia SEERED into his memory?

You mean unlike Hillary 'trail of dead bodies' Clinton who dodged sniper fire and had to run with Chelsea from the helicopter while in Bosnia?

You mean unlike Obama and his corrupt/anti-american/anti-white friends and business dealings?

:shk: glass houses xmotex.



[edit on 4/13/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
We wanted democracy in the Middle East, and so Palestinians got it. Now they elect someone we don't agree with, so we shun then for using their democratic rights to vote them into an acting goverment. Now a ex-president who has dedicated his life to helping others wants to go there for peace talks, and people here get frustrated because we're not supposed to talk to enemies to get them to stop their actions?

Even though some people would love to see Hamas bombed to the ground, history has shown that doing so would not work in the longer run. Look at Vietnam, when we tried to destroy their goverment, convert them to Democracy, and then "liberate their people;" then look at Iraq when we tried to destroy their goverment, convert them to Democracy, and "liberate their people." Bombing countries and expecting them to consider us as heroes for killing their goverment can only have negative implications. Through talks, we can see exactly why they are enemies to us, and at least open up a bridge for peace between us.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
So let's take a step back and look at the conspiracy part of this.
(this IS a conspiracy site afterall).

Carter hates the Jews and looooooooves the Muslim terrorists.
Carter has endorsed Obama.
Is this a look at what an Obama Administration would be about?
Screw the Jews and hug the terrorists?

Obama and the Black Panther connection.

Wright , Obama's long time anti-white and anti-Jew mentor, used to be a muslim.



[edit on 4/13/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Jimmy Carter is in the same league as the Sean Penn and Jane Fonda's of the world. Irrelevant except in their own minds. Giving aid and comfort by talking to acknowledged terrorist only weakens Americans hand. There should be a law preventing this American humilation, but a free country allows these type of treasonist acts to take place.

If he is killed or held for randonsom, what would American do?
Send in special forces in concert with Isreal and the UK?
Blow Hamas of the map(finally) with 1000 1 ton satelite guided bombs?
Or do nothing at all?

It depends on the circumstances, but our hand is already on the trigger because of Irans arrogance.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
BTW, are you aware that the "Reagan military buildup" you guys love to talk up actually began under Carter? I realize they don't mention it in the rightwing propaganda rags, but look at the FY defense budgets (increased every year under Carter) and at programs like the F-117 & even the B-2 - all Carter-era programs. Not that I would want to ruin your ideologically "corrected" version of history.


How do you explain Carter vetoing the B-1 and the neutron bomb, if he was so pro military?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join