Or c) None of the above. The category that includes better than 99% of the human species. Note that this category includes the raving fanatic who believes himself totally honest, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well, virgins, of course! Duh.
Okay, I’ve been trolled by you enough for a day.
Adios.
Heh. You’re the only person in this thread going off about everyone else being racists and “eeeeeevil” and citing from obviously biased websites, not to mention your sheer volume of invective.
People in glass houses, and all that.
Wait, Carter is a secret Muslim? I thought that was Obama.
The thing is, spoke-, a lot of what Carter has stated about Israel and the Israel-Palestinian situation just isn’t true. I don’t know what motivates him to do that, but he does. And when he does it as much as he does, it’s kind of hard to believe that he doesn’t have bad motives.
CA, by the same token, do you really think that spoke really is confused and isn’t aware of anybody playing partisan politics or supporting one side in a conflict over another? He’s truly baffled that such a thing might be possible? He’d offer the same baffled support to someone who routinely lied to demonize the Palestinians and paint the Israelis as blameless?
His question is honest (and there’s a good reason why he still hasn’t addressed Carter’s dishonesty or the use it’s being put to…), and spoke really is baffled that anybody, especially anybody who consistently lies to support one side in a conflict and demonize another. might be a partisan?
It’s the same behavior spoke seems to generally engage in when Carter’s lies are the topic. First he tries to avoid or handwave away Carter’s lies. Then he asks the same question over and over and over again, despite the number of times it’s been answered. Then he claims that people who have noticed what Carter is doing must be claiming he’s evil and is working to destroy Israel. Somewhere along the line he claims that we can’t look at the facts of Carter’s lies or the pattern that they represent, because he’s such a good man that to criticize his behavior is beyond the pale.
It’s just the same old bullshit from spoke, and he’s not going to act honorably any time soon. He’ll happily say that I’m making “bullshit” claims that are a “smear”, but when asked to show where I’m wrong in my claims, he changes the subject.
Or feigns surprise that partisans exist in the world. :rolleyes:
Such as?
Y’all keep walking up to the edge of the pool but you won’t dive in.
This is getting really confusing, y’all.
I read what seem to be clear statements from several posters (Malthus, Captain Amazing, Finn) that they believe Jiminy Carter is biased on the subject of Israel. spoke seems to think there is some sinister motivation being hinted at for Carter in a weaselly way (especially by Finn), so he keeps alleging this (or, rather, creeping up to the edge of alleging it) using dark sinister hints in a way that to the casual observer seems rather, well, weaselly.
It is doubly confusing since spoke has a history on this board of hinting at dark hidden conspiracies by supporters of Israel, never coming right out and saying he thinks they exist but that we must be vewy vewy careful about the possibility, and after all he’s Just Asking Questions. :dubious:
So c’mon spoke, stop confusing us by hinting around about other people hinting around, and spit it out. What dastardly deeds are your opponents allegedly engaging in, and is there really a shrine dedicated to Jimmy Carter in your living room with velvet wall hangings and such?
Jackmannii, did you tag in now? I need a scorecard.
Oh bullshit. I have never hinted at any “dark conspiracies.” If you contend otherwise, pull a cite or else man up and withdraw that allegation.
What I have done is noted the impact of AIPAC on US foreign policy. That doesn’t require any conspiracy theory, and is hardly a controversial observation (or shouldn’t be anyway).
So do you buy into Finn and Captain Amazing’s notion that Carter has some mysterious “bad motive”? If so, what is that motive? Why would he go out of his way to embroil himself in this mess? What does he hope to achieve?
I haven’t yet seen a plausible alternative to this: Carter genuinely wants to be a peacemaker. But if you have a plausible alternative to that, let’s hear it.
Well, he sure put the effort into fooling us all, gotta say that! Shows some real commitment, something even a KGB mole out of a LeCarre book would find daunting!
Goes out and swings a hammer for Habitat? I’ve swung a hammer for money, and I’ll tell you right now its work, and I hate work, and I think that, over all, I’m a decent sort, but I’m damned if I’m working that hard for strangers, and for free! But he does it. And he damned sure doesn’t have to. (I’m sure the Secret Service guys assigned to him wishes he’d just sit on the back porch and drink, but no such luck…)
Taught Sunday School for years, broke with the Southern Baptists when they got too mean-spirited. Gone all over the world taking risks for peace. His phone rings, someone asks him to go to Godknows as an honest broker, he packs his bag, and gone. He gets called in to watch elections, broker negotiations, all manner of peace mongering.
And he did all of this just so’s he could sneak up on Israel and knife her? Well, OK, if that’s what you think, takes all kinds, I reckon.
Oh Clowny, you are so funny. Witty, too!
Surely, let us avoid Carter’s habit of lying and the way in which he uses those lies, and let’s talk about how he builds houses or goes to church. Obviously, then, anybody who wants to talk about him lying must be alleging that he only pretended to build houses so as to pounce on Israel.
You’re so clever.
Well I chuckled.
Well, the other explanation is that he’s over all a pretty good fellow, but on the subject of Israel, he’s unhinged. Jimmy Carter, that is.
You mean, we might actually look at the evidence to see if Carter has a habit of lying about the subject, if his lies support an agenda and if that agenda is a partisan agenda of demonizing Israel and absolving the Palestinians of any and all blame… rather than looking at whether or not he built houses?
Goddamn Clowny, why didn’t someone suggest that before now, think of the time we’d have saved!
Still, I think we’ve pretty much just engaged in some gruesome debate-equivalent of coitus interuptus. Spoke has been jacking off in the mere hope that someone will call Carter an anti-Semite and then spoke can go on to claim that nobody, ever, can criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite. He had a tissue ready and everything.
All I am doing Finn, is giving you some rope. You are doing the rest.
Keep on trying to demonize Jimmy Carter, and see how many people you convince.
I don’t know if Carter has a bad motive or not. He might sincerely want to be a peacemaker. I don’t really care what his motive is, though. I care what he says and what he does, not why he says and does it.
As for such as, if you want me to jump into the pool, I’ll jump into the pool.
Such as…
Carter says, in his book, that Israel needs to withdraw “to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242”.
UN Resolution 242 doesn’t say that Israel has to withdraw to the 1967 border. It requires “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, but that doesn’t mean that Israel needs to withdraw from all the territory back to the border.
In later interviews about the subject, he said
But that’s not what the agreement at Camp David said. The agreement said (bolding mine)
So the Camp David Agreement didn’t say Israel was to give back all the land. It said the borders would be settled by negotiation.
Carter states in the book "When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated ‘The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.’ " It’s probably true that Arafat said that, but Arafat’s statement was false, and Carter should have known that. The PLO charter, for instance, says “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.-Article 15”
In his November 28th appearance on PBS Newshour, Carter made the statement, about Hamas, “Since August of 2004, Hamas has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not one.”
Well, he was right. Between August 2004 and November 2006, Hamas didn’t commit a single act of terrorism, it committed at least 6 acts of terrorism, and killed at least 12 Israelis. Those were just actions it claimed credit for.
When Carter talks about the security wall/fence/barrier, whatever you want to call it, he makes the claim that it is “projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border.”
A United Nations report criticizing the border says that it is “[at 703 km], more than twice the length of the Green Line [315 km]”
If you get the chance, read Alan Dershowitz’s “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace”, which he wrote in response to Carter’s book. The book doesn’t just look at Carter, of course, but in the appendix, he looks at a bunch of stuff that Carter says that isn’t true, and documents how it’s not true.
I have a lot of difficulty accepting what appears to be a core premise of your reasoning, and happy to be corrected if wrong. You seem to believe that Israel has some right of conquest to territory gained by force of arms. That such territory is hers to negotiate about in the first place.
I hope that we are struggling to reach a level of civilization where such notions are scorned by all reasonable people. Its taking longer than we thought…
So in the multitude of interviews he has given on this subject, you have cherry-picked a handful of factual misstatements he has made along the way and these are the “LIES LIES LIES” we keep hearing about? Couldn’t they be, y’know, mistakes?
And no, you still haven’t jumped in the pool. You insinuate Carter has “bad motives,” (your words) but you won’t say what those “bad motives” could possibly be.
I say Carter is trying to be a peacemaker. Still waiting for a plausible alternative.
Again, readers should check out a nice list of Carter’s lies. They will note that they are, without exception, all lies that make shit up in order to slime Israel and/or exonerate the Palestinians of any misdeeds. Without exception. Spoke would have you believe that they are all honest mistakes that just sorta happened, and that they all favor one side is just, ya know, luck.
Then again, Spoke is also a partisan whore and has the personal integrity of a hungry ferret. He knows full well that there’s an entire list of Carter’s lies, of which Captain Amazing was only citing a brief few. Spoke knows this, because he’s debated it in the past as well as just the other day in GD when he tried to handwave away the entire list as “quibbles”. Now he pretends he’s never seen it at all.
Here’s another sampling. Of course, Carter is, in all cases, honestly wrong. For serious. And the fact that his mistakes always cast Israel in the worst possible light, why, that’s just a coincidence! Or, as I posted in the other thread, and spoke has ignored to focus on his dodge of “guess Carter’s emotional state!”:
So Carter lies about treaties, lies about agreements, calls an exchange of prisoners for a video tape a prisoner swap (while scourging Israel for not accepting)… but that’s just all honest peacemaking, right?
Well, darn, Carter’s own staff have caught him lying several times and pointed it out. How can that be? He helps build house! And, hrm… Carter’s doing the same thing again. Lying to pretend that Israel is simply choosing to avoid or even willfully obstructing peace (if not encouraging the torture of prisoners)… I’m sure there’s a good reason for it. Surely this fits into “peacemaking” somehow. And doesn’t show that Carter is bigoted against Israel and uses fiction to support his narrative and ignores facts when they contradict. Surely not. He’s a peacemaker!
I trust Spoke will explain.
P.S. Spoke, you are a lying stooge. You’ve already been given a plausible explanation: carter is a partisan. Now pretend you haven’t seen that some more, idiot.