Comments on: The Beatings Will Continue…

By: health plans

health plans — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:50:36 +0000

VERY GOOD WEBSITE!I LIKE IT.

By: debt management credit counseling

debt management credit counseling — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:35:32 +0000

This is great, look forward to looking into every area. Thanks for being there.

By: fair debt collection

fair debt collection — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:08:20 +0000

Best content I ever seen. Huge amounts of live feeds, high payouts. Realy cool.

By: Edo

Edo — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:44:01 +0000

Mikef @comment #12.

Exactly right. Josh and Michael van der Galien, the ball is in your court.

By: Gray

Gray — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:57:12 +0000

Imho Carter is a straight, honest guy but this is another example that he simply has no clue about the possible consequences of his actions. And that’s what ruined his presidency, way back when. Too sad.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:03:18 +0000

Endorsing terrorism? At leat he’s stupid. Terrorism will stop once Israel accept the roadmap? What a freaking joke! Terrorism against the state of Israel will stop when the state of Israel ceases to exist.

And then, terrorism will simply be used against Western countries more often.

Yeah great one Carter.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:12:56 +0000

12. The Commanders of the opposing sides shall order and enforce a complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed forces under their control, including all units and personnel of the ground, naval, and air forces, effective twelve (12) hours after this armistice agreement is signed.

That’s from the Korean War Armistice agreement. It’s standard language in any cessation of hostilities. Are you arguing that the authors wanted the North Koreans to continue all out attacks until time was up?

Carter explicitly calls for an end to hostilities. “..they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism..” He never endorses the violence. He insists that they acknowledge they need to stop it.

Had he written that Israel needs to stop killing Hamas members once an agreement was made, would you be arguing that he’s endorsing killing them today?

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:58:23 +0000

I don’t see it either, David. He won a Nobel peace prize because that is what he cares about- it is his life’s highest achievement. He’s not about inciting the Palestinians to resort to terrorism. Why not analyze statements in the context of the person’s character and history? It amazes me how quickly people will jump to conclusions of antisemitism because of how they interpret Carter’s writings. He may not be skilled at getting his point across, but a man whose crowning glory was the Camp David peace accords is not about to encourage terrorism. Jeeesh

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:50:58 +0000

It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel. Carter, Pg. 213

Explicitly endorsing Palestinian terrorism against Israel? I'm not seeing it. In fact, I don't even see that it's implicitly endorsing terrorism. If anything's wrong with this statement by Carter, it's that it echoes all too similarly the tired "we'll condemn our side once you condemn your side" rhetoric. But that's not the same as endorsing terrorism.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:11:36 +0000

Josh,
Do you deny that Israel is holding thousands of Palestinians without trial? Do you deny that Israel is building a wall inside of Palestinian territory? Do you deny that Israel has killed and displaced more Palestinian civilians than vice-versa? Do you deny that Israel has cut off the West Bank from much needed food and other humanitarian supplies?

It’s amazing the terror a wealthy state can visit upon poor and defenseless.

By: David Schraub

David Schraub — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:36:09 +0000

I don’t think it’s a self-serving conclusion–I don’t see another plausible reading. Carter said terrorism should stop “when” certain conditions are met. That begs the question of what should happen if those conditions are not perceived to have been met. Unless the condition was added as superfluous rhetoric (i.e., the sentence has no meaning), I see no other plausible assumption other than that the terrorism can continue.

By: josh

josh — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:29:58 +0000

Chris, how about we don’t. Unless you want to substantiate your comments with facts. I’m quite open to a debate. Let’s have a go.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:15:30 +0000

How about we turn it on it’s head. It’s up to the Israeli’s to promise an end to their terrorist campaign against the Palestinians if the Palestinians stop the suicide bombing.

By: Edo

Edo — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:02:13 +0000

â€¦and thus, until they are satisfied that said condition has been met, its okay for terrorism not to stop.

That sure seems to be a self-serving conclusion. As I didn’t have the pre-existing mindset that Carter thinks its okay for the Palestinians to continue to engage in terrorist acts, I didn’t read that sentiment between the lines.

By: Chuck Prez

Chuck Prez — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:43:54 +0000

That dude just keeps setting himself up. *smh*

By: David Schraub

David Schraub — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:35:54 +0000

“heâ€™s saying itâ€™s up to the Palestinians to promise the violence wills top once roadmap is accepted by Israel.”

…and thus, until they are satisfied that said condition has been met, its okay for terrorism not to stop.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:21:24 +0000

This is what passes for political analysis? Geez. Shields and Brooks are sleeping well.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:55:34 +0000

This is more than a stretch.

Explicitly endorsing terrorism? No, he’s saying it’s up to the Palestinians to promise the violence wills top once roadmap is accepted by Israel.

Which seems to me to be a no brainer.