Someone has sand in da vag

I recommend

The State Department lists Hamas as a terrorist group, however, meaning U.S. officials are not to meet with them.

I don't think that Jimmy Carter is an official of the U.S., or has been for close to 30 years.

Also, that policy is stupid. Maybe if we had a little discussion with some of these people that hate the U.S. maybe they might not hate us so much.

"He's just unilaterally going off on his own ...."

He's a private citizen, I fail to see the problem.

Oh goodie, another Carter thread.

Hopefully, this will be more about how this Congresswoman is the most retarded being on the planet. Ric Flair, wtf?

ekdikeo4: The State Department lists Hamas as a terrorist group, however, meaning U.S. officials are not to meet with them.

I don't think that Jimmy Carter is an official of the U.S., or has been for close to 30 years.

Also, that policy is stupid. Maybe if we had a little discussion with some of these people that hate the U.S. maybe they might not hate us so much.

See if we talk to them, they suddenly become 'real people'. Its harder to bomb 'real people' for silly moral reasons. If they are just 'terrists', there is no moral problem in bombing them.

diplomacy is un-american, as it requires tact and understanding, which of course is far beyond the realm of the neocon.

He should be more like Reagan who refused to talk to Gorbachev.

We're relatively lucky that the neo-cons took over when they did - in a time when we don't have a formidable enemy like we did then*. If the "crazies in the basement" were dictating our foreign power then, the planet would be one, big glass parking lot.

*despite what the duped believe, radical Islam is not even close to the greatest threat we have ever faced.

He needs to go talk with that Zawahiri fellow next. Maybe they can work something out.

mediaho: *despite what the duped believe, radical Islam is not even close to the greatest threat we have ever faced.

They managed the first attack on American soil in a hundred years or so...

Ryan2065: mediaho: *despite what the duped believe, radical Islam is not even close to the greatest threat we have ever faced.

They managed the first attack on American soil in a hundred years or so...

History wasn't your best subject, was it?

Ryan2065: They managed the first attack on American soil in a hundred years or so...

ahem...



/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Blues_X: Ryan2065: They managed the first attack on American soil in a hundred years or so...

ahem...



/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Don't forget this guy:

Chuck Wagon: History wasn't your best subject, was it?

Well, first attack by a foreign country in at least a hundred years...

Blues_X:
ahem...

/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959, 17 years after those battles. Yes, there is a huge difference between a direct attack on American soil and an attack on an American base on some Island many miles away.

Chuck Wagon: Blues_X: Ryan2065: They managed the first attack on American soil in a hundred years or so...

ahem...



/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Don't forget this guy:

I guess we should also count that Bill Ayers guy too. :P

Ryan2065: Chuck Wagon: History wasn't your best subject, was it?

Well, first attack by a foreign country in at least a hundred years...

Blues_X:
ahem...

/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959, 17 years after those battles. Yes, there is a huge difference between a direct attack on American soil and an attack on an American base on some Island many miles away.

Well, if those don't count, how about the Japanese sending balloons that set fires on the west coast?

Ryan2065: Chuck Wagon: History wasn't your best subject, was it?

Well, first attack by a foreign country in at least a hundred years...

Blues_X:
ahem...

/not to mention the Aleutian Island battles

Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959, 17 years after those battles. Yes, there is a huge difference between a direct attack on American soil and an attack on an American base on some Island many miles away.

They were still U.S. territories and considered U.S. soil.

muck4doo: Well, if those don't count, how about the Japanese sending balloons that set fires on the west coast?

This I did not know about, link?

Chuck Wagon: They were still U.S. territories and considered U.S. soil.

Fine, if you want to nitpick, the first foreign attack on the states.

Ryan2065: muck4doo: Well, if those don't count, how about the Japanese sending balloons that set fires on the west coast?

This I did not know about, link?

Oh, found the Wikipedia page myself. Link (new window)

/never knew the Germans landed in Canada also

Ryan2065: muck4doo: Well, if those don't count, how about the Japanese sending balloons that set fires on the west coast?

This I did not know about, link?

Chuck Wagon: They were still U.S. territories and considered U.S. soil.

Fine, if you want to nitpick, the first foreign attack on the states.

There is a ton of stuff out there about it. Look here. (new window)

The US government put an order on the media at the time not to discuss it, becuase they didn't want the Japanese to know it was working.

muck4doo: The US government put an order on the media at the time not to discuss it, becuase they didn't want the Japanese to know it was working.

I'd hope what the US media did in the 40s would affect my education in the 90s but it looks like it did...

Lest we forget, the Canadian attack of 1986.

AIPAC's getting to work.

What the hell, do we have to have a daily Obama hate thread AND a daily Carter hate thread now? You Repubs need calm down, and take some lessons in government and foreign policy.

GAT_00: What the hell, do we have to have a daily Obama hate thread AND a daily Carter hate thread now? You Repubs need calm down, and take some lessons in government and foreign policy.

No need to be bitter, but I feel your pain. How come Fark never runs any hate Hillary/Bush/McCain threads? We never see those here, nope.

Chuck Wagon: See if we talk to them, they suddenly become 'real people'. Its harder to bomb 'real people' for silly moral reasons. If they are just 'terrists', there is no moral problem in bombing them.

Yeah, I understand that. Maybe if they didn't want to bomb us, we wouldn't want to bomb them, though.

muck4doo: How come Fark never runs any hate Hillary/Bush/McCain threads? We never see those here, nope.

of course not, they'd be all empty.. no one hates Hillary, Bush, or McCain.

ekdikeo4: Chuck Wagon: See if we talk to them, they suddenly become 'real people'. Its harder to bomb 'real people' for silly moral reasons. If they are just 'terrists', there is no moral problem in bombing them.

Yeah, I understand that. Maybe if they didn't want to bomb us, we wouldn't want to bomb them, though.

Thats just crazy talk. Why you so crazy.

The esteemed congresswoman is a dumbass. The last thing you want is Jimmy Carter playing victim - the Democrats' base clings to the Carters because their big moment in the sun came around the time Bella Abzug was a household name, and now they're bitter that their biggest success since JFK has been a smarmy skirt-chasing half-Republican.

Every time Jimmy Carter opens his mouth, John McCain picks up a point in the polls.

Let Carter be Carter, says this cynic.

Ryan2065: Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959, 17 years after those battles. Yes, there is a huge difference between a direct attack on American soil and an attack on an American base on some Island many miles away.

They were American territories. An attack on them was an attack on the sovereign territory of the United States of America. Anyway, you didn't say "states", you said "soil" so even if your new claim made any sense at all, it would be a goalpost move.

No attempts to redefine what you said or to wiggle will get you out of this hole. Just say "oops, that was stupid" and be done with it. Attempting to justify it at this point would be pointless (but damn entertaining if you decide to go that route).

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Carter does what 60+ years of diplomats have been unable to accomplish in that region?

Thrag: They were American territories. An attack on them was an attack on the sovereign territory of the United States of America. Anyway, you didn't say "states", you said "soil" so even if your new claim made any sense at all, it would be a goalpost move.

No attempts to redefine what you said or to wiggle will get you out of this hole. Just say "oops, that was stupid" and be done with it. Attempting to justify it at this point would be pointless (but damn entertaining if you decide to go that route).

Didn't we finish this an hour and a half ago? Who are you trying to impress here with your great wisdom of knowing territories are technically US soil?

Oooo ooo, are we playing "Who can make the biggest empty gesture slapping at someone who doesn't share my politics?"

/Grow up.

All this discussion of what was and wasn't a territory at what time is silly. Remember that Hillary said we're putting an umbrella over every middle eastern country. Not only would an attack on Israel now be an attack on the United States but their counter attack would be to.

/Let the pot be stirred

former President Jimmy "Have you hugged a terrorist today?" Carter

I get this. I get the joke. What I don't get is the logic that inspired the joke. How many people think fighting fire with fire is a good idea? Terrorists don't have a nation or some common thread uniting them other than abject hatred. How is hating and fearing and killing them going to help us do anything but increase their numbers?

I mean shiat, the commies are out there, they hate religion and money, but we never killed them all. Why aren't we afraid of them anymore?

muck4doo: No need to be bitter, but I feel your pain. How come Fark never runs any hate Hillary/Bush/McCain threads? We never see those here, nope.

Yeah, but they've actually done stuff worth hating.

Because, god forbid we should actually talk to the enemy and see if there's some alternative to just killing each other for the next couple of millenia.

bin Laden was able to bankrupt and bring down the Soviet Union and we're next because our leaders are just as stubborn and stupid.

moothemagiccow: former President Jimmy "Have you hugged a terrorist today?" Carter

I get this. I get the joke. What I don't get is the logic that inspired the joke. How many people think fighting fire with fire is a good idea?

If you believe in the idea of 'an eye for an eye' then everyone will be blind.

madmann: Lest we forget, the Canadian attack of 1986.

Those filthy sub-human Canuck savages! I say we roll north, leaving the charred frames of Tim Horton shops in our wake!

Hamas is democratically elected representation in Palestine. Do we believe in democracy or not?

Ryan2065: Fine, if you want to nitpick, the first foreign attack on the states.


You can call it "nitpicking" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that you were wrong. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. But by all means, keep backpedaling -- it's fascinating for everyone to watch.

lilbjorn: Because, god forbid we should actually talk to the enemy and see if there's some alternative to just killing each other for the next couple of millenia.

bin Laden was able to bankrupt and bring down the Soviet Union and we're next because our leaders are just as stubborn and stupid.

A nobody -- and he was a nobody during the Afghan War; Hekmatyar was a *far* bigger player -- bankrupted the Soviet Union? How about the fact that the Soviet Union had a deeply flawed centrally-planned economy, whose population probably had incredible cynicism about their government (c/o the rapid shift from proletarian revolution to Leninist rule by terror, to Stalinist cult-of-personality, to elderly bureaucrats being out-revolutioned by their own creations (specifically the 'adventurist' Castro)) and increasing awareness of the far higher prosperity of the West? Oh, and those Afghan militia were being heavily backed by a superpower with arms funneled through Pakistani intelligence, so it's not like they won solely on their own merits.

And if Hamas and the US government don't exactly go along, it's not because of misunderstandings. A daily phone chat wouldn't exactly change the fact that the two have fundamentally incompatible views about how the mess in the former British Mandate should be resolved.

Ryan2065: Didn't we finish this an hour and a half ago? Who are you trying to impress here with your great wisdom of knowing territories are technically US soil?

Sorry, was just reading thread now and was taken aback by the facepalm inducing stupidity of your comment and your attempts to spin it, so I commented as is the tradition here on Fark.

Bitter much? Now, don't go working yourself into a tantrum if someone else happens to make an, albeit belated, reference to your stupidity. Either grow a thicker skin or learn to avoid making comments that will make everyone laugh at you.

Rovian: Hamas is democratically elected representation in Palestine. Do we believe in democracy or not?

Hamas staged a coup d'etat against the Palestinian Authority, seizing power by force. That's why Fatah no longer has any power in the Gaza Strip. Do we believe in democracy or not?

She needs to shut the fark up.
What an @55h0le

Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959, 17 years after those battles. Yes, there is a huge difference between a direct attack on American soil and an attack on an American base on some Island many miles away.

Uh, try again.

The Territory of Hawaiʻi, abbreviated officially as T.H., was established on July 7, 1898 and dissolved on August 21, 1959 when Hawaiʻi became a state. The U.S. Congress passed the Newlands Resolution which annexed the former Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and later Republic of Hawaiʻi to the United States. Hawaiʻi's territorial history includes a period from 1941 to 1944 when the islands were placed under martial law. Civilian government was dissolved and a military governor was appointed.

Did we call it quits when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

moothemagiccow: former President Jimmy "Have you hugged a terrorist today?" Carter

I get this. I get the joke. What I don't get is the logic that inspired the joke. How many people think fighting fire with fire is a good idea?

"Fighting fire with fire" would mean randomly slaughtering Palestinian civilians, not looking for ways to distribute humanitarian aid.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/03/101753.htm


Terrorists don't have a nation or some common thread uniting them other than abject hatred. How is hating and fearing and killing them going to help us do anything but increase their numbers?


Hamas appears to want a Palestinian state out of their present holdings in the Gaza Strip, plus the whole of the West Bank (presently still Fatah-held), and, IIRC, Jerusalem. At minimum. If they were disorganized bozos driven entirely by mindless hate, they would likely have already provoked Israel into doing something re-occupying the entire Gaza Strip. They have objectives which do not appear to include their own eradication.


I mean shiat, the commies are out there, they hate religion and money, but we never killed them all. Why aren't we afraid of them anymore?

There aren't many of them in power anymore. The recent election in Nepal might be characterized as a statistical anomaly among the nations of the world. Those that -are- still in power, tend not spend much time fist-pounding near a very bright red button, or to be proposing the export of global revolution, through violence if necessary. The most powerful 'Communists' in name tend to be rather welcoming of investment and economic cooperation, these days.

They only hated religion where religion offered an alternate authority separate from the Party. A suitably pliant religious institution that cooperated with temporal authorities -- see the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet days, for instance -- did not need to be eradicated, whereas one that demanded another loyalty (to the Pope, say) posed a problem. Nor was money or prosperity hated -- doctrinally, it was the distribution of resources and the alleged deficiencies of unplanned economies that was the issue.

DrBenway: You can call it "nitpicking" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that you were wrong. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. But by all means, keep backpedaling -- it's fascinating for everyone to watch.

Thrag: Sorry, was just reading thread now and was taken aback by the facepalm inducing stupidity of your comment and your attempts to spin it, so I commented as is the tradition here on Fark.

Bitter much? Now, don't go working yourself into a tantrum if someone else happens to make an, albeit belated, reference to your stupidity. Either grow a thicker skin or learn to avoid making comments that will make everyone laugh at you.

I don't really get all the snark I'm getting here. Did you guys think I left that mini-debate thinking I was right and you guys are pointing out I'm still wrong or did you see others do the work for you in proving I was wrong and decided you would take a quick jab at me to try to prove your intellectual superiority?

Korovyov

Hamas staged a coup d'etat against the Palestinian Authority, seizing power by force.




Not according to Wikipedia:

Since the death of Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas's political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the ruling Fatah party took 43.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas (pops)

Whats with the Bush-shiat?

lolmao666: Not to mention that it was an inside job.

And that OKC was an inside job too. Sorry.

Didn't they find out that the other two bombs recovered from the Murrah Building were planted by Osama? Or was that Saddam?

I thought Muslims didn't eat hamas