Compare that to the endless list of Obama criticism no-nos: his race, his name, his mother, his deadbeat father, his half-brother, his fked-up hateful church and "former" pastor, his links to American 60s hippie terrorists, his harridan wife, his lack of experience, his Jimmy Carter platform...

That last sentence made me laugh. My roommate still drives his Hummer, for fuck's sake. Nobody wants to give up anything. Just ask Jimmy Carter what happened during the 70s energy crisis when he said people should turn down the heater and wear a sweater. All he received was a big middle finger from America, which turned around and voted in Ronald Reagan.

Barry is affirmative action for the White House and Jimmy Carter II.

That's right, dad gummit! Who needs Senators passing IQ tests? Ptui! Eggheads is what got us into this trouble in the first place! Eggheads like that damn Jimmy Carter with his wimpy, "Energy crisis is the moral equivalent of war" nonsense back in 1979! Who made him the nucular rocket surgeon?

6 Arabs who claimed to be from Khuzestan took 26 workers hostage in the Iranian embassy. Their demands were:

1. Autonomy for Arabistan
2. The release of 91 political prisoners held in Iran

The 91 political prisoners were executed on the first day of the seige.



This happened the year after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people revolted against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was put in power after a CIA funded coup.

The US military launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) which failed killing 8 soliders. This led to Jimmy Carter loosing the election, and ended up strengthening the position of the Ayatollah Khomeini and radicalising anti-American forces in Iran.



This clip of the SAS storming the embassy in 1980 is unfortunately all that most people remember from those very scary times. We would do well to remember what is known historically as 'America's first war with militant Islam', with all the propaganda about Iranian nukes that is dribbling out of the evil frothing mouth of corporate American media these days.

Obama is going to be four flat tires for the US. Just like his predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

One final point - if you believe that Hamas are created to invade Israel, and you believe that this is possible, you really need to look very hard at Israel, their military, their nuclear weapons (which they have illegally against the non-proliferation treaty which they signed) and ask yourself what would happen if America, UK and the UN recognised this as being the real goal of Hamas.

This is your proof.

Good luck.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.

The unilateral withdrawal offered by Sharon that you mention was in fact a 10 year truce mediated by Jimmy Carter in return for complete withdrawal of Isreal forces from the occupied lands taken in 1967, and a return to the 1967 borders. Isreal never responded to it.

Hamas then offered another truce in June this year mediated by Egypt. They have agreed to stick to the timetable but will continue to respond to Isreali attacks. Isreal didn't respond to that either.

In 2006 Hamas announced it would cease all violence if Isreal recognised the 1967 borders and withdrew from occupied territory.

I hope you are seeing the parallels with the Irish struggle.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

By Hamas own charter, they define the illegally occupied country as the ENTIRETY of Israel. If taking that 'back' is a legal and legitimate goal I'm content to disagree.


Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.


Israel took the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights after the six-day war from, not the Palestinian people, but from Jordan and Syria. Israel was not concerned with circling the Palestinians, as they were not in control of those regions, they were concerned with the armies that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing on their borders.

As for withdrawal, have the Palestinians put forward anything similar to Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? I'd think that, at the least, somewhat qualifies as encouraging withdrawal.

QM can't tell the difference between a movie and a pundit on a "news" programme. Wow.

Well, can you tell the difference between one woman's thoughtless aside and an entire network?

In addition to liberals' unhealthy, irrational obsessions with race, gender and class, add Fox to the list.

PS Obama is Jimmy Carter.

I can't help but feel a sense of hatred towards people like that caller. How could you possibly confuse Jimmy Carter with someone that is "black hearted"?

That's like thinking Santa Clause is an evil, selfish pedophile out to get kids into the sleigh.

In the documentary, "Jimmy Carter Man from Plains," there is a segment that discusses his use of the word "apartheid" in his book title and content.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

"I think they do some terrorist acts"
"I thought I could convince them to be more accommodating"
"...they agreed completely, and they authorized me from the top level, to make that announcement to the public"

"Nobody told me not to go.....

Jimmy Carter is one of the biggest fucks on the planet-follow the money, eh? King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center until he died-his foundation continues to accept monies from those who wish the see Israel disappear

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"-I'd consider it an insult to myself, and a glorious waste of brain cells to thuumb through it-here's one blogger's reminder, after the usual brain-damaged responses to the label, "anti-semitic" using bastardized semantics and leaving meaning at the doorstep-
[Carter's message is simple and clear: End the unjust occupation, then let's start talking about peace. That's not antisemitic, it's anti-oppression.]-

"Scholars, founding members, of Carter's own foundation resigned over the book's outright lies and distortions. Carter refuses to debate anyone who is knowledgeable enough about the subject and the totality of his own defense argument is merely that "my book is totally accurate." Carter accepts major monies from those who oppose the very existence of the State of Israel... Methinketh, therefore, that anyone with a minimal degree of intellectual honesty has to be somewhat weary of the "truths" in his book.'

Carter the Tool. He needs to go back to farming-and not be allowed to speak in public, ever again.