[lpkmckenna]

Jimmy Carter says Canada's withholding funds from Palestinians 'criminal.'

Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter

For Canada and others to punish the Palestinian people because they voted for their candidates of choice, I think is literally a crime.

Do me a favor Jimmy:

Canada doesn't give funds to terrorist groups. Now just off a go back to building homes for poor people. Thanks.

[Sky Captain]

I'm glad to see y'all are finally seeing what we have been saying for years.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I'm glad to see y'all are finally seeing what we have been saying for years.

Who is "y'all." ?? Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single memorable thing you've ever said.

[marden]

It was the Carter administration which supported the Mujahideen (later Taliban -> al Qaeda) against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

In fact, based on Carter's moves at one point Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov thought:

[PDF]
CAS 38-2 27 March 2006.vp
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Gromyko, Yuri Andropov, Alexei Kosygin, and Boris Ustinov, ... the United States was seeking to create “a ‘new Great Ottoman Empire,’ which ...
taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/ index/L3283N8633511W32.pdf - Similar pages

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Who is "y'all." ?? Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single memorable thing you've ever said.

Just because you've finally seen the light doesn't mean you get to talk smack. If the top of your head was all THAT good not only would you have remembered many of the things Cap has said but you'd have been able to see the light long before now.

[lpkmckenna]

I don't know what you're rambling about, but opposition to Hamas is the official policy of both the Democratic party and the Liberal Party of Canada. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anything you or anyone else here at MacNN has ever said.

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't know what you're rambling about, but opposition to Hamas is the official policy of both the Democratic party and the Liberal Party of Canada. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anything you or anyone else here at MacNN has ever said.

Ok.

(Never let it be said I made it difficult for anyone to jump on board. )

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't know what you're rambling about, but opposition to Hamas is the official policy of both the Democratic party and the Liberal Party of Canada. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anything you or anyone else here at MacNN has ever said.

Geeze, so defensive.

I'm pretty sure that all he meant was: glad that Canadians (y'all) are finally seeing what many Americans (we) have said about Carter for years- that he's an absolute moron and an embarrassment when it comes to matters like being a useful idiot for terrorist groups and every other tinhorn on the planet. In other words: agreeing with your first post.

[Kerrigan]

But but but Europeans fund them!

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Who is "y'all." ?? Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single memorable thing you've ever said.

Y'all= the rest of the world sees that Jimmy carter is an idiot.
Jeez.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

It was the Carter administration which supported the Mujahideen (later Taliban -> al Qaeda) against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Point being?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Point being?

I'm just sayin.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm just sayin.

It's not like you to "just say". If it doesn't have a point, why bring it up? You wouldn't be wanting to try to paint Carter as a supporter of the Taliban and Bin Laden without wanting to deal with those who similarly supported Saddam, would you?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's not like you to "just say". If it doesn't have a point, why bring it up? You wouldn't be wanting to try to paint Carter as a supporter of the Taliban and Bin Laden without wanting to deal with those who similarly supported Saddam, would you?

In the overall scheme of things which do you think was the bigger 'sin?'

This should be good.

[marden]

December 8th, 2006 • 3:16 am
Dershowitz Dissects Carter, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid”

Glenn Beck had world famous attorney Alan Dershowitz on Thursday night to discuss Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid”. To say that Mr. Dershowitz shredded the book on multiple levels is totally accurate. It didn’t take long for the dissection to begin:

BECK: Why would you do that?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think he really wants to get publicity for his anti-Israel approach. Look, the most extreme thing he does is, we all know that Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000-2001, 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza. Bill Clinton said that and he said Arafat turned it down. Dennis Ross, our man there said that. Prince Bandar, the prince in Saudi Arabia, said that. Only Yasser Arafat disagreed and said no, no, no, it was really the Israelis who turned it down. Jimmy Carter chooses to believe Yasser Arafat over Bill Clinton and all the Americans. If I were Bill Clinton, I would be livid. I suspect Bill Clinton is livid. He’s being called a liar by Jimmy Carter, and yet Bill Clinton has not spoken up.

It doesn’t take a genius to see what Carter refuses to admit: that Yasser Arafat wanted nothing to do with signing a peace agreement with Israel. Only in Carter’s world of delusion could someone think that Arafat was ever a trustworthy negotiating partner.

Dershowitz is undeniably liberal, a man that most conservatives wouldn’t agree with on much other than Israel. That said, Dershowitz gets it when it comes to Israel and he isn’t willing to stay silent when another liberal talks stupidity and delusion about Israel-Palestine.

Here’s another shot at Carter:

DERSHOWITZ:He will not sit down on a one-on-one on television or on the radio and have a discussion with me or anyone else who knows the facts. He insists going at it alone, and he is conveying misinformation, ahistorical facts to American audiences on every television show in America.

I challenge Jimmy Carter, my old friend, somebody who I supported, to sit down with me on any television school, at the Kennedy School, anywhere, and discuss in a rational way these issues. And I will show how wrong he is historically and how wrong he is in his assessment of this situation.

The last thing that Jimmy Carter wants to do at this point is sit down with anyone who would slice and dice him, which Dershowitz certainly would do. The reason why Dershowitz would dissect Carter’s assertions is because Carter doesn’t have the facts on his side. I can picture a Carter-Dershowitz debate, with Carter making one false statement after another. When Dershowitz finally has had enough, he’d go into Reagan mode, saying “There you go again” before ripping Carter to shreds with his reply.

BECK: Yes, you can’t. Now, let me go back to Jimmy Carter. I want to focus on him for a second. It seems to me, and you know, I know you voted for him. I’m sure you voted for him. I wouldn’t have. I mean, I think he was a horrible president. But it goes beyond just being wrong, in my opinion. He seems to look for the, he seems to look for the worst in us, or not believe the best in us but believe the best in these horrible dictators and thugs.

DERSHOWITZ: You’re absolutely right about that. He loved Yasser Arafat. He bounces his baby on his knees. He loved Assad, a dictator who killed 10,000 of his own people, and he couldn’t stand Golda Meir. And he lectures Golda Meir, saying Israel isn’t religious enough. It should be more religious. Imagine how critical he’d be if Israel were more religious?

He can’t stand Begin. There are two or three Israelis he likes, Israelis who agree with him. But he seems to love every Palestinian, every Arab. He doesn’t have it in his heart to condemn Hamas. He thinks Hamas would really recognize Israel eventually. He sees the bad and the worst in everything America does and everything Israel does, and he sees only the best in everything the Palestinians and the Arabs do. At bottom, this is a deeply, deeply anti-American book as well as an anti-Israel book.

OUCH. That’s taking a harsh shot at Carter. The thing is that it’s totally accurate. It’s also sad to think that a former president is capable of such delusion and intellectual dishonesty. I’ve said before that Jimmy Carter is both the worst president in American history and the worst ex-president in American history. Based on the excerpts from his latest literary work, I see no reason to change my mind.

Carter’s frenzied pursuit of a positive legacy is the work of a desparate, small man.

Technorati: Jimmy Carter, Hamas, Palestine, Arafat, Anti-Semitism

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Let Freedom Ring � Middle East

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

In the overall scheme of things which do you think was the bigger 'sin?'

This should be good.

Personally, I think both were rather short sighted.

What do you think?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by marden 

It was the Carter administration which supported the Mujahideen (later Taliban -> al Qaeda) against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

In fact, based on Carter's moves at one point Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov thought:

Really? Reagan did not?

[paul w]

Carter has not been doing too well lately. Earlier this year he put his foot in his mouth in Ethiopia, siding with the government who snatched the elections, threw the opposition in jail and brutally and bloodily crushed the ensuing demonstrations.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Personally, I think both were rather short sighted.

What do you think?

I am beginning to think that radical Islam has remained constant over time but the various administrations have had different ways of dealing with it and these differences have contributed to the US losing ALL credibility in the M.E. because every new President or Congressional election America changes it's tune!

It's like a house with a leaking roof that successive owners continue to avoid dealing with.

One owner patches it the wrong way. Another patches it using the OPPOSITE way. Another tries to make use of the leak by putting a plant under the drip. Still another ignores the leak altogether and hides it from the inhabitants.

Carter - Funded and supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, this helped give rise to the problem we now face. Refused to deal directly with Islamic Revolution in Iran. Hostages held 444 days.

Reagan - Tried to be fair to Palestine. Got assaulted by radical Islamists in Beirut. Iran/Contra affair sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. Supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq to oppose the expansion of the radical Islamic Revolution throughout the M.E.

GHW Bush - Failed to go all the way to take care of Baghdad in Gulf War I because Saddam was still a useful hedge against Iran's Islamic Revolution spreading throughout the M.E.

Clinton - Ignored or responded ineffectively to repeated radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Re-established a pattern of cutting & running in Somalia.

G. W. Bush - Confronts the threat of global Islamic aggression by using military force in Afghanistan and Iraq. But because of the manipulation of the American public and a lack of will, predicted by OBL, as well as a less than stellar execution after the successful invasion, any hope of keeping Iran contained is now seemingly dead.

And this is after Iran and Syria were SHAKING in their boots when we invaded.

They aren't shaking anymore.

Russia is dealing with Islamic radical aggression against THEIR interests in a forceful manner, while supporting the Islamic radicalism that is aimed at the U.S.

The Chinese are gearing up to fight Carrier Battle Groups. OUR Carrier Battle Groups.

And Americans are relieved that we will soon be pulling out of Iraq. Americans think we should negotiate with Syria & Iran. Americans think patriotism is passe. Americans think the American government is the biggest threat to liberty.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You seem to be blissfully unaware that there is a difference between the "american government" and the "Bush administration."

And when do you ever think that negotiation is appropriate? Never with an enemy? Do you only negotiate with people who are your allies?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You seem to be blissfully unaware that there is a difference between the "american government" and the "Bush administration."

That is a popular notion that has gone unchallenged for too long.

The Bush administration IS the current American government. You may not like it but you do NOT have the option of denying their status except in rather meaningless conversation. You can verbally rebel and protest against them but the reality is they ARE the American government.

For another 771 Days.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And when do you ever think that negotiation is appropriate? Never with an enemy? Do you only negotiate with people who are your allies?

From a position of strength. Or when we are trying to appeal to an enemy to have mercy on us.

Which do you think it would be if we negotiated with Iran?

Dec. 8, 2006 7:08 | Updated Dec. 8, 2006 19:55
Column One: Jews Wake Up!
By CAROLINE GLICK

When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.

Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world - Iran and Syria - in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.

Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.

The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

If we really go along with this the United States will have hit rock bottom in terms of morality.

Like selling out our friends to save our own ass.

Great Britain, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, watch your back cuz we AIN'T got it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I am beginning to think that radical Islam has remained constant over time but the various administrations have had different ways of dealing with it and these differences have contributed to the US losing ALL credibility in the M.E. because every new President or Congressional election America changes it's tune!

This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of democracy. There isn't much that can be done about that unless you want to advocate for an American dictatorship until your "radical Islam" has been dealt with.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of democracy. There isn't much that can be done about that unless you want to advocate for an American dictatorship until your "radical Islam" has been dealt with.

On this we have reached an agreement.

Pop!
Fizzle
Glub, glub, glub

Cheers!

*Clink*

It is time for everyone to unify behind the President and for us to insist on a bi-lateral commission COMPLETELY BEHIND THE SCENES so there would be no opportunity for grandstanding or politikking, and a set of comprehensive foreign policy PRINCIPLES should be established with regard to the WoT so that no matter what or who wins in 2008 the approach and philosophy will be the same now as it will be then and from there on.

Kinda like an "American Covenant' such as the Hamas Covenant.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

It is time for everyone to unify behind the President ...

Good luck with that. With the American election season rapidly approaching it's going to be hard enough to unite Republicans behind the current President, never mind everyone else.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Good luck with that. With the American election season rapidly approaching it's going to be hard enough to unite Republicans behind the current President, never mind everyone else.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the ISG report was supposed to be so patently outrageous to EVERYONE with a brain and a love of America that both Democrats and Independents (assuming they have brains and love America) would figuratively (if not literally) take to the streets to denounce it. And there we would have our bipartisan unity!

Hahaha!

Jokes on me. Most people are taking it seriously and most Dems and libs are cocking their heads and looking at us in their unblinking Zombie-like way and asking, "what's wrong with negotiating with Iran & Syria?"

[Millennium]

It's called freedom of association, Mr. Carter. If Canada and other countries decide that they no longer want to associate with a country that has thrown its support behind a group of genocidal maniacs, that's their prerogative and no one's problem but their own (and, arguably, that of Hamas as well). In no event is it a crime, or if it is a crime then it's no more of one than knowingly funding a group bent on genocide.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I have this sneaking suspicion that the ISG report was supposed to be so patently outrageous to EVERYONE with a brain and a love of America that both Democrats and Independents (assuming they have brains and love America) would figuratively (if not literally) take to the streets to denounce it. And there we would have our bipartisan unity!

I don't think you really understand "bipartisan". "Bipartisan" means both sides making concessions.

[Macrobat]

No, bipartisan simply means it has members from both parties on it, nothing more. Despite what you'd like to read into it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, bipartisan simply means it has members from both parties on it, nothing more.

Which pretty much means that both sides represent their perspectives in any decisions.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Which pretty much means that both sides represent their perspectives in any decisions.

IF THE COUNTRY IS AT WAR IS IT SO DAMNED MUCH TO ASK THAT...

Wait a minute, you aren't even American. Pfft!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

IF THE COUNTRY IS AT WAR IS IT SO DAMNED MUCH TO ASK THAT...

When the fundamental issue of division is "should the country be at war?", then I think yes, it is "so damned much to ask that".

Originally Posted by marden 

Wait a minute, you aren't even American. Pfft!

Irrelevant. The actions of your country in this matter affect my country very closely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

That is a popular notion that has gone unchallenged for too long.

The Bush administration IS the current American government. You may not like it but you do NOT have the option of denying their status except in rather meaningless conversation. You can verbally rebel and protest against them but the reality is they ARE the American government.

For another 771 Days.

There are 3 branches of government, slugger. Does it make you "unpatriotic" to criticize Ted Kennedy or the Supreme Court for their political decisions? Or if you were to comment that those decisions are the biggest threat to liberty? For example, the liberty of "the unborn?" Would those comments be "unpatriotic"? I say no. Part of patriotism in this country is being true to the ideals it was founded on, and one of the biggest of those is the right to criticize those currently in power when they make stupid decisions.

Or to look at it another way, does it make Palestinians unpatriotic for them to criticize Hamas? Maybe it's ok for them to be unpatriotic since their government is practicing terrorism, but you've already said in this thread that you think our government should start taking theirs as an example. So when that happens, would it be unpatriotic to criticize our leaders? Or maybe it would but that would be ok. So what if you believe it's happening already?

I expect no response, as usual when you've been cornered.

<Homer>If you agree, signal by giving no sign</Homer>

From a position of strength. Or when we are trying to appeal to an enemy to have mercy on us.

Which do you think it would be if we negotiated with Iran?

Mercy of course. Haven't you ever heard of MAD?

Btw, if you wanted it to be from a position of strength, did you advocate negotiations when they were "shaking in their boots?" Why or why not? Is it because you hoped we would annihilate them utterly, to crush them and see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

It is time for everyone to unify behind the President and for us to insist on a bi-lateral commission COMPLETELY BEHIND THE SCENES so there would be no opportunity for grandstanding or politikking, and a set of comprehensive foreign policy PRINCIPLES should be established with regard to the WoT so that no matter what or who wins in 2008 the approach and philosophy will be the same now as it will be then and from there on.

Kinda like an "American Covenant' such as the Hamas Covenant.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

I guess democracy is an inferior paradigm to terrorism in your estimation? If that's true, why do we deserve to win this conflict? Even if we dump democracy and take up this superior strategy you describe, we'll still be behind in that race...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

I guess democracy is an inferior paradigm to terrorism in your estimation? If that's true, why do we deserve to win this conflict? Even if we dump democracy and take up this superior strategy you describe, we'll still be behind in that race...

I don't think marden realizes that asking those who disagree to stop disagreeing is essentially the end of democracy. Or, perhaps he does, but the only democracy he wants is where people only vote Republican ... kinda like the form of democracy practiced by Saddam.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm just sayin.

Wow.

So trying to keep the Soviets in check wasn't a good idea?

Let's just gloss over the part where Reagan funneled them 2 billion dollars too.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When the fundamental issue of division is "should the country be at war?", then I think yes, it is "so damned much to ask that".

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of democracy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crevald1.html

To make things stranger still, the determination of American decision-makers to ignore world public opinion was counterbalanced by their extreme sensitivity to the views of their own electorate. At that moment, he noted, fully seventy five percent of those polled were in favor of bombing North Vietnam – just as, in April 2004, a small majority of Americans still believed that the war in Iraq was worth-while. Still permitting public opinion to decide on such issues seemed to him a strange way to run a war, and one he thought was likely to have grave consequences for the future.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There are 3 branches of government, slugger. Does it make you "unpatriotic" to criticize Ted Kennedy or the Supreme Court for their political decisions? Or if you were to comment that those decisions are the biggest threat to liberty? For example, the liberty of "the unborn?" Would those comments be "unpatriotic"? I say no. Part of patriotism in this country is being true to the ideals it was founded on, and one of the biggest of those is the right to criticize those currently in power when they make stupid decisions.

Or to look at it another way, does it make Palestinians unpatriotic for them to criticize Hamas? Maybe it's ok for them to be unpatriotic since their government is practicing terrorism, but you've already said in this thread that you think our government should start taking theirs as an example. So when that happens, would it be unpatriotic to criticize our leaders? Or maybe it would but that would be ok. So what if you believe it's happening already?

I expect no response, as usual when you've been cornered.

You obviously have me mistaken for someone else. The name is marden.

Let's allow that just as you might think you have the answer here, there are scientists who have PROVEN that the bumble bee can not fly. It's just too un-aerodynamic.

And yet...

The fact is that in re: to our government vs the Bush administration they are the same.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Mercy of course. Haven't you ever heard of MAD?

Btw, if you wanted it to be from a position of strength, did you advocate negotiations when they were "shaking in their boots?" Why or why not? Is it because you hoped we would annihilate them utterly, to crush them and see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women?

MAD? Why yes. They make a magazine and there is a TV show of the same name.

And with those comments I'd say you might have borrowed them from the MAD franchise.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Why Iraq Will End as Vietnam Did by Martin Van Creveld

Wow ... you can't even formulate your own answer?

and, I hope you're not suggesting that Americans shouldn't have a voice in the direction of their country?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

You obviously have me mistaken for someone else. The name is marden.

Let's allow that just as you might think you have the answer here, there are scientists who have PROVEN that the bumble bee can not fly. It's just too un-aerodynamic.

And yet...

The fact is that in re: to our government vs the Bush administration they are the same.



MAD? Why yes. They make a magazine and there is a TV show of the same name.

And with those comments I'd say you might have borrowed them from the MAD franchise.

Non-responses are just as damning to your credibility as no response.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wow ... you can't even formulate your own answer?

and, I hope you're not suggesting that Americans shouldn't have a voice in the direction of their country?

I'm saying that Americans should have just as much say in the direction we're going as the moderate Muslims have a say in the direction the radicals are taking the Ummah.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Non-responses are just as damning to your credibility as no response.

As if I'm concerned with such things. I spread truth, wisdom and entertainment as I see it and those who will believe it will believe it. Those who like it, like it. Those who don't, don't.

I'll let you worry about my image.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I expect no response, as usual when you've been cornered.

smackdown.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

smackdown.

How do you like this smackdown icon?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Millennium

genocidal maniacs

Maniacs? Perhaps.

Genocidal? I think not.

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, the words some people throw around here, tsk, tsk, tsk.

[macintologist]

Dershowitz is undeniably liberal, a man that most conservatives wouldn’t agree with on much other than Israel. That said, Dershowitz gets it when it comes to Israel and he isn’t willing to stay silent when another liberal talks stupidity and delusion about Israel-Palestine.

Why the f*** does it matter? This issue is so god damn irrelevant it makes me sick. Why don't we stop funding the Middle East, stop wasting our government resources on people that hate each other and instead fight for freedom in America?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Maniacs? Perhaps.

Genocidal? I think not.

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, the words some people throw around here, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Genocide is the logical conclusion of the goals of Hamas. It's rather naive to believe that they would stop at Israel's borders.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Genocide is the logical conclusion of the goals of Hamas. It's rather naive to believe that they would stop at Israel's borders.

What, you genuinely believe they want to kill all the Jews on the planet?
If that is indeed what you think, could you offer the least bit of credible evidence to support such a radical conclusion?

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Why the f*** does it matter? This issue is so god damn irrelevant it makes me sick. Why don't we stop funding the Middle East, stop wasting our government resources on people that hate each other and instead fight for freedom in America?

That's a bold proposition, I must say!

Where others merely propose pulling back from Iraq and allowing the Islamists to flood in and fill the breach you want the U.S. to do even more. You want us to abandon EVERY friend or ally we have, step back from every gain we have achieved using diplomacy, commerce or our military and allow the Islamists to fill in the void by simply walking into the buildings, offices, homes and barracks we surrendered.

Wow!

No one can ever accuse you of lacking imagination!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What, you genuinely believe they want to kill all the Jews on the planet?

Eventually, yes. Most of them likely don't realize this yet, and probably won't until they conquer Israel and then realize they aren't satisfied (assuming they ever conquer Israel in the first place), but this is how such groups always start. "The Homeland" is a cheap excuse, and when it is no longer applicable they will find another.

[marden]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What, you genuinely believe they want to kill all the Jews on the planet?
If that is indeed what you think, could you offer the least bit of credible evidence to support such a radical conclusion?