Jimmy Carter Speaks on Islamic State at Forum

[FrodosPet]

"I think we need to attack ISIS. I'm really concerned about them."

"Is the bombing of ISIS justified? I say yes. And I hope President Obama has every possible success in getting allies to join with us, some with ground troops effected inside Syria."

[TwilightGardener]

1. When Jimmy Carter wants you to bomb ISIS...you bomb ISIS.

Even the Pope is discreetly looking the other way...

[FrodosPet]

2. Jimmy Carter, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders...

All of whom have access to far more information than we do are saying the same thing.

[Cha]

27. Exactly, Frodos.. they know a hellava lot more than those on the internet.. and they're not stuck

in the past.. thinking this is just like bush's war

[stevenleser]

28. Yep. I was against going into Syria for the purposes of deposing Assad. I was against Iraq in 2003

but ISIL/ISIS is a real threat, and lots of other folks who were against all those same wars agree with me now.

Only folks who cannot seem to understand that every situation isnt the same as one before it can't seem to figure this one out.

[FrodosPet]

30. Their intentions are honorable. They are tired of war.

History is history. We cannot go back and undo the invasion of Iraq, the Palestinian mandate, or the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood. The crusades happened, they cannot "unhappen". The Shia-Sunni schism is a done deal. There are no backwards time machines to go fix all this crap.

We have to live in the world we have. We don't need to bomb everyone and everything to stop them, but we need to destroy their vehicles, ammo stores, and command centers, so that the Iraqi army can go in with minimized resistance and try to re-establish some minimal level of civilization.

[stevenleser]

34. I'm not convinced their intentions are honorable. It's not that hard.

While human beings are somewhat resistant to change, we react to changing stimuli all the time.

We understand that if we cross the road while a car is coming we are going to get hit and hurt and perhaps killed. We watch the road and cross when there are no cars.

A war based on a lie is a crime. A war based on actual facts and murders of your own citizens and the threat that the group that murdered those citizens and behaves like that all the time to a wide swath of different people might take over a large amount of territory is different from a war based on a lie.

It's not that hard. You have to want to not get that.

[sabrina 1]

36. Who are these people whose intentions are not honorable? Name a few please.

As you must recall, the 'some people' meme used all the time by Faux back when we were starting that old war these same people who opposed it then now oppose this WHICH THEY PREDICTED. Perhaps people ought to read the predictions of some of those who opposed the Iraq War. They were RIGHT, they predicted that 'military action will not stop terror'.

I am one of those people. Are you saying MY intentions are not honorable?

[cali]

51. then what do you think are the dishonorable intentions held by those of us

opposed to this plan?

[stevenleser]

54. You tell me. Why is what I described so hard to get? nt

[cali]

56. I've already described what I see as the pitfalls and likely outcome

and my opinion isn't rooted in what others think; it's based on recent history. I don't know how to be much clearer:

Our military interventions in the region have done nothing- time after time- but result in one clusterfuck after another. We've exacerbated the shi'ite sunni divide. destroyed economies, created more and more radical fighters and destabilized the entire region. One of the biggest problems now- and one I don't seeing discussed very much- are the millions of Syrian and Iraqi refugees that are displaced both internally and externally.

What will years of bombing do to address the problems of the region?

[stevenleser]

61. So many problems with your analysis its hard to know where to begin to address them.

#1 - Europe has had problems for centuries. Our actions in World War II did not solve them and in fact led to the cold war and many other problems, some of which we are still seeing. Yet are you prepared to argue that the US and UK should have left Europe to Nazi Germany because it would not have solved Europe's problems once and for all?

#2 - You conveniently skirted the issue that I was addressing, that of many people here arguing that what we are doing now is "the same" as the Iraq war in 2003. The first issues to address are whether Obama with ISIS is the same as Bush with Iraq and Saddam and WMD and whether ISIS really is a murderous multistate terrorist entity bent on grabbing as much territory as possible.

Is it a good idea to allow a group that is so radical that Al Qaeda disavowed them, that has brutally murdered all the people that ISIS has murdered in a short time, to take over Syria and Iraq completely and have access to billions of dollars in terms of the regions petro-resources? Look what they have done with a few hundred million they looted from Iraqi banks and extorted from the countries of kidnap victims. And if you think they will stop with Iraq and Syria, they won't. Al Qaeda and their offshoots like ISIS hate the Saudi royal family. They consider Iran's mullahs heretics. They will take both of those countries. If we do nothing, ISIS will establish themselves as an extremely rich regional superpower with all the behavior we have seen recently, the ability to purchase and develop all kinds of weapons and will likely attempt to expand even further.

#3 - You are ignoring/dismissing what a number of folks who have been against most if not all recent wars are saying. People like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jimmy Carter, etc. Just to name a few.

Ignoring all this is not the product of good motives. It's willful ignorance. It's a desire to seem holier than thou in spite of all evidence. It's a spiteful desire to attack the Democratic party and its officials.

[cali]

62. wow. so much wrong with your response, it's just sad.

the comparison with Europe to begin with. I can't think of a poorer comparison from a historical vantage. First of all, we didn't create the situation in Europe that led to WWII. We had an enormous role in creating the conditions currently extant in the middle east. Secondly, ISIS isn't remotely comparable to Nazi Germany; not in scope, not in capabilities.

Conveniently skirted? Way to insert a nasty and utterly false insinuation. Is it the same as 2003? I'd say the intent is not the same. I don't believe that President Obama wanted this. Having said that, the result is more likely than not to be much the same because we will be doing many of the same things. Hasn't it even given you a second's thought that we are doing just what ISIS wants? And don't you wonder why they want to draw us into this?

You are repeating a meme with little foundation. They are what Al-Qaeda morphed into. This is hardly a surprise to anyone who is actually doing any research.

http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis

There is a shitload of information about this and I note you contradict yourself by saying that ISIS is an offshoot of A-Q.

Yes, ISIS would like to take over the world. They do not have the capability to do so. Seriously, you think they stand a chance against Iran? Iraq and Syria are easy pickings. They are failed nations.

No, I'm not ignoring what others say. I'm disagreeing with them.

You are willfully ignoring the mountains of evidence in the form of recent history. I think that's intellectually dishonest and shabby.

[stevenleser]

67. Once again, you are wrong

We didn't create "all the problems in the Middle East". While we certainly created some, we didn't create all of them and there is nothing to say that without the US the Middle East still wouldn't have problems with Islamic fundamentalism. Even if you say that the Taliban are partly the fault of the US, Mujahedin were fighting the Soviets before we got involved. We didnt create the Mujahedin, we helped them, that's true. That's not the same as creating them. We don't know that the Mujahedin wouldnt have eventually defeated the Soviets without us.

From the very beginning, your agenda is in your way. It's all about the bad US. You can't even start evaluating the threat from ISIS without falling all over yourself about the US.

And yes, you conveniently skirted what I said. And you did it AGAIN with this last message. You still didnt address the threat from ISIS.

I'm wrong that ISIS is an Al Qaeda offshoot? Hmmm:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/06/opinion/nazer-west-isis/
Can the West live with 'brutal' al Qaeda offshoot ISIS?
By Fahad Nazer, Special for CNN
updated 12:33 PM EDT, Wed August 6, 2014

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-j11.html
Al Qaeda offshoot ISIS captures Mosul from Iraqi government forces
By Barry Grey, World Socialist Website
11 June 2014

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-12
The Economist explains
What ISIS, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, really wants
Jan 20th 2014, 23:50 by S.B. | CAIRO

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extreme-al-qaida-terror-jihadi
Who are Isis? A terror group too extreme even for al-Qaida
The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has a reputation for being even more brutal than the main jihadi group of inspiration
Mark Tran, UK Guardian

So that's four major media sources, one socialist (WSWS), one progressive (The UK Guardian), one Liberal (The Economist) and one mainstream (CNN) that all see it like I do, that ISIS is an Al Qaeda offshoot.

[cali]

50. My problem with this is.... recent history.

The odds of successfully reducing the threat with bombing seem slight. The odds of "unforeseen" consequences are great.

[cali]

49. What kind of information do you imagine they have?

[morningfog]

6. Neither are infallible.

I feel like I'm back in the 10% of 2001-2003. And I am okay with that.

The thing is propaganda works. It works time and time again. That is why it is employed.

[Cha]

26. Right.. and neither are you, mf. I think you are stuck back in 2001-2003 but many of us realize

we're not. I think Jimmy Carter, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama among many others know a lot more about this than you do.

[sabrina 1]

38. Funny how suddenly this threat came about. I have been following events in Iraq

pretty consistently especially since Maliki took over. The violence there has been constant. There never was any semblance of freedom. Maliki consistently brutalized the Sunni population there creating even more violence.

Yet, we rarely say any reports about the violence which escalated year after year.

Was the US looking the other way? Did they not see how violence was spreading to Syria with many of the same groups operating in Libya, Syria and Iraq??

How come there was no attempt to do anything to stop the Maliki Govt from their practices that any moron could have predicted was going to result in even more violence??

That WAS possible as we saw recently when the Western powers DID step in. TOO LATE!

Eg, during the Arab Spring, Iraqis joined those other nations and began peaceful protests, set up a website, went on Twitter etc. The crackdown was instant. But not once did I ever see Iraq mentioned as part of that movement.

Sorry, we were told in 2003 much of what we are being told now. AND those of us who opposed it, were greeted with comments just like yours.

I believe we are being lied to, as I did then. And if we are not, there has been some SERIOUS NEGLECT on the part of those charged with monitoring these things. Either way, something just doesn't add up here.

[morningfog]

41. It has nothing to do with being stuck.

The objectives as stated by the administration do not match the policy. I just don't trust that the path we are going down is going to be efficient, effective or that it is necessary. I've not been convinced of the urgency or that it has to be us waging this war.

[treestar]

14. Wow, that is persuasive.

He's someone I would consider an expert on the Middle East. I hate the idea of wasting another dime there, though. But there are a lot of considerations.

[pokerfan]

20. And then what?

What's the exit strategy? And when we do succeed in toppling ISIS/L, then what? Another ten years of nation building? And then what do we do about the next bad guy that steps up to fill the vacuum?

[TwilightGardener]

22. Get the Iraqis to keep them out of Iraq, is what. That's the only reason

we're doing airstrikes--because of political and military failure that allowed ISIS in to take over Sunni areas. Force an end to the Syrian civil war, so it stops being a failed state and a haven for extremist groups. Get both countries to reassert control over their less-governed areas. None of this should take nation building or American ground troops as an occupying force, but it will take a while. Or we'll be dropping bombs for years on end. I don't know what the alternative is, but a large terrorist state residing within the middle east is not a good scenario.

[freshwest]

33. Okay, but when you say 'Get the Iraqis to keep them out of Iraq...' that's not the issue.

They are in Iraq and Syria, driving people to the Kurdish areas in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (as usual). None of those regional goverments want to end up so destabilized they'll be toppled for the ISIS caliphate.

Turkey is in NATO, and that draws us in as they have asked for NATO to help them for a long time regarding the situation in Syria spilling into Turkey. So we are being forced to pick a side to meet our treaty obligations. But none of them can be trusted, IMO.

ISIS is getting support from the ultra wealthy in the Middle East who want the caliphate, even if the governments in their own nations fall. They're looking at this in a long term manner.

When you* are richer than kings and nations, totalitarianism of the type that ISIS represents, looks great to keep on top.

(*You* not used in the personal pronoun sense. I've had to explain that lately to some DUers.)

[TwilightGardener]

37. Well, Iraq is a primary concern and obligation for us, so that's why we should start

there, help them get rid of this scourge. The big question is where to end it. And how to end it.

[cali]

52. lol. and the odds of that are slim. We are widely distrusted and despised by both Sh'ite

and Sunni. The Iraq armed forces, after a decade of training and arming, are useless. What does "force an end to the Syrian civil war" even mean? How would that work? What would/could we do to "force" an end to it.

Iraq is a failed state. Syria is a failed state. Libya is a failed state. That's not hyperbole. It's obvious to anyone paying attention.

[TwilightGardener]

53. I agree it's all difficult problems to solve. But just throwing up one's hands

isn't going to work either.

[cali]

57. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something between bombing (for years and years, and

training and army dubious groups) and throwing one's hands up.

[TwilightGardener]

59. Bombing isn't the whole answer. But terrorists do need to be killed.

This is not a group that can be reasoned with--their stated goals are incompatible with the civilized world, their actions are brutal. Do you object to killing Al Qaeda?

[cali]

60. It's not about "objecting to killing"

I believe we will create more of them this way. So do they. Why do you think they taunted the U.S. into a direct war with them?

[TwilightGardener]

65. You either kill them, or just watch them and hope they don't really mean what they say

when they threaten our country. I don't think killing them makes more of them, because they're actually not popular. I think invading and breaking things and occupying, killing innocents, and inserting ourselves in a civil war certainly breeds some discontent, which is why we have to be careful not to do the same stupid shit over again. But I don't see a way to ignore these guys, same as AQ. They need to be exterminated.

[stevenleser]

68. Right. And they have already occupied large swaths of two countries, so watching them and hoping

doesnt seem like a good strategy to me, to you, to Senators Sanders or Warren, to Jimmy Carter to ...

and for obvious reasons.

[cali]

48. oh baloney.

I make up my own mind about issues- and I don't hide behind authority to do it.

How has all that bombing we've done in the region worked out for us?

[FrodosPet]

64. I hate to say it, but probably better than if we had not

Islamic extremists were committing terrorist acts against America back in the 1990s. Does anyone remember the first attack on the World Trade Center? How about the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

Yes, we effed up bad in 2003. However rotten and corrupt Saddam was, he did help us keep our hands clean. But he was not going to last much longer in his position anyhow. What was Iraq going to turn into once he died or was deposed?

In any event, if we said we were 100% neutral, hands off, no military action, no military aid or support, they are still going to hate us. They are going to continue killing and enslaving innocents. And they would have lots of weapons to do it with.

You gotta play the hand you have, not the one you want.

[strawberries]

66. I have followed

Jimmy Carter since 1976 and NEVER have I EVER heard him call for war, bombs... nothing.

He even advised Clinton to send N Korea food and health supplies to try and win them over

[jwirr]

3. This man knows the ME and I trust him. As much as I hate war I also understand that sometimes

something has to be done. What if we had continued to ignore Hitler. These people may not be as bad as Hitler but what happens as they gain power.

[Major Hogwash]

4. The man who is at the head of ISIL said that ALL muslims should bow to him back in June.

After making that statement publicly, he went underground.

[DCBob]

5. Good. Glad Jimmy spoke up on this.

Maybe this will help convince the anti-bomber crowd.

[morningfog]

7. Doesn't change my opposition.

I'm disappointed to hear Carter say this. I wonder if he'll change his position after 3+ years of US war.

[FrodosPet]

11. Progressives with influence need to quit getting information from military and intelligence sources

Senators Warren and Sanders need to boycott those security briefings and stick to the blogosphere and message boards for their information about international affairs.

[morningfog]

12. Warren and Sanders voted against funding the only measure

Presented so far. They oppose arming and training the rebels.

As far as I can tell their support may be limits to strikes in Iraq, like the Europeans. Time will tell if that is the case.

I am not one to blindly accept that because someone sees something I don't that it should be assumed they are correct.

[FrodosPet]

17. I applaud them for not over-reacting

And throwing money at groups who may not have good intents.

The fact remains, though... they are not pacifist on this. They want a deliberate, effective, allied approach. Which involves pink misting some bad guys. They agree that the "Islamic State" and other similar groups are threats.

[morningfog]

18. But not threats to the US.

What other groups are you referencing?

[FrodosPet]

25. Khorasan, the Nusra Front...

Yes, you are right that the Islamic State is focused on winning physical territory. Even if it does not affect the U.S. mainland in the short term, it does in the long term.

But are their still groups who want to bomb jets out of the sky? Of course. Dog help us if the I.S. gives them cover and support. Hopefully, they will be at each other's throats, and not watching each other's backs.

http://www.chieftain.com/news/world/2898222-120/group-khorasan-qaida-pages

[alp227]

29. " stick to the blogosphere and message boards "? Really?

what would they know that the US intelligence sources not know? and you can't have those type of expectations with elected members of congress!

[Aerows]

15. I'm disappointed, too

If Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all came out for joining in the war in Syria ... I'd still disagree.

It is ill-fated, will end in a bloodbath and is the dumbest PR I've seen since "They are throwing infants out of incubators" lies to drag us into it.

[Aerows]

8. Too many have

the envies for war and relish the wealth it brings them. Blood and bodies don't bother them - the bottom line is all that matters.

[FrodosPet]

9. Perhaps former President Carter has some defense stocks?

What other reason would he have for saying what he said, right?

After all, what would HE know about the Middle East? What has Jimmy Carter ever done to seek peace in the Middle East?

[Aerows]

10. Too many have the envies for war

That statement stands by itself, and if you see it specifically as an indictment of former President Carter, the point of my statement was lost.

[FrodosPet]

13. I'm sorry - I thought you were sticking to the subject of Pres. Carter's statements

I'm not going to try to deny your statement. Yes, there are people who want this for pure greed.

But the appearance was that you were aiming at the subject of the OP. Can you see how I might have made that mistake?

[Aerows]

16. Allow me to retort.

I disagree with going into Syria. I disagree with getting involved in what amounts to another "tossing babies out of incubators" situation. I disagree with another "looking for weapons of mass destruction hunt". I disagree with setting foot in the middle of a Syrian civil war to end the reign of Assad.

If there is something that I wasn't clear on, please let me know. I will tell you exactly what I think, and I won't be shy about stating it.

[FrodosPet]

21. There is a difference here

There is documented proof of the Islamic State's atrocities. I do believe there is a group of Muslim extremists who have militarily captured some key areas of Syria and Iraq, and who are conducting genocide against people who do not accept their distorted and violent vision of Islam.

I believe that, left unchecked, they will consolidate their power and grow in strength and capacity, with their numbers growing through a combination of willing volunteers and terrified conscripts. I believe that, absent the normal controls of diplomacy and self-preservation, they will ultimately trigger a HUGE war that may go nuclear.

They don't want to throw babies out of incubators. They want to behead them because their parents are Shia, Chaldean, Yazidi, whatever other than them.

[Aerows]

23. Yeah

There was a difference there, too.

If left unchecked, they might decide to open a chain of falafel restaurants in the Middle East.

You just pointed out why this whole situation is so implausible - "Shia" "Chaldean" "Yazidi" "Sunni".

Savages. Enraged people. Throwing babies out of incubators. Cutting peoples heads off.

Here is where the narrative has lost steam - if you cry wolf too many times, people aren't worried anymore, and simply assume that if the wolf shows up in their backyard, they will shoot it themselves.

And they will.

That's when the narrative perishes and people decide they can think for themselves.

[OilemFirchen]

44. I think it's safe to say...

that you don't know how the fable ends.

[Uncle Joe]

19. ISIL or ISIS is a problem and whether we created Frankenstein or not, they can't be ignored,

or this will play out like the 1910s.

Thanks for thread, FrodosPet.

[Aerows]

24. You can ignore

a monster created out of your own mind that lives under your bed if it isn't really there.

[Uncle Joe]

39. That's true, Aerows but I believe it's really there. n/t

[Cha]

31. Thank you, Frodos.. as has been said, Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren

all well respected leaders, have access and know a hellava lot more about this than those on the internet who can't grasp this isn't being run by the bush-cheney neocon crowd.

[freshwest]

35. Carter, Warren and Sanders thrown under the bus in 3... 2... 1...

[cali]

58. Not at all. I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time.

[riderinthestorm]

43. Agreed. What do they know that we do not? Nt

[freshwest]

63. Indeed. What have they seen that we have not?

Not one smug or proud face viewing what was going on thousands of miles away in real time:



HRC looks like she's going to puke there, no bluster or satisfaction. They all look chastened by what they are seeing. Obama looks both disgusted and stricken:



With all the satellites, video in real time and all the rest they see, I think we've been spared a lot.

We don't see the killings done by ISIS unedited on television, or hear the screams of those being raped and murdered, the cries of the children. We only saw a small part of the aftermath of what ISIS was doing to the Ysildi.

This stuff is not for public consumption, but it does effect Presidents and PMs if they aren't psychopaths.

We only see reports and opinions. Some people that have gone to cover the stories of horrible things going on in the world commit suicide.

If we were exposed to it, sad to say, not all would react with tears and a commitment for peace. Part of our population would begin beating on Muslims again and call for genocide.

[CJCRANE]

46. They're probably more dangerous

if they're being run by the neocon crowd.

[Thinkingabout]

32. When the information you receive indicated action is needed one must act with integrity and

Not ignore. Thank you Jimmy Carter for speaking out.

[Cha]

40. KICK!

[riderinthestorm]

42. Interesting. When Jimmy Carter advocates action, I'm always willing to listen

K&R, not because I necessarily agree but its pretty sobering to hear his perspective on this.

[Nye Bevan]

45. You know a terrorist group has become really, really hated

when two Nobel Peace Prize winning US presidents are chomping at the bit to bomb the ever-loving shit out of them.

[oberliner]

55. I think it's champing

Though there is some disagreement on that:

http://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/

[Cha]

69. I would say "dangerously deadly". They want the horrendous plundering and killing to stop.

(NY Times) Islamic State Issues Video Challenge to Obama September 17, 2014

Laith Alkhouri, a senior analyst at Flashpoint Global Partners, a New York security consulting firm that tracks militant websites, said the Islamic State “appears to be more relentless than ever, not only expanding in territory but also raising the bar in its confrontation with the world’s top superpower.”

“In some ways, it’s attempting to prove to jihadists that while Al Qaeda is missing in action, we are rising to the occasion,” Mr. Alkhouri said. “It demonstrates the true intention of the group, to operate on an international level.”

http://flashpoint-intel.com/

[FSogol]

47. K & R. n/t

[KoKo]

70. GOTV...we Dems Need to Defeat ISIS/IS/ISL....GOTV

This is crucial. We don't want McCain/Palin Party to FUCK UP our Dem Initiatives. Obama with Dem's support can WIN THIS ENDLESS WAR ...and Hillary as the 2016 Presidential Win will make it that Dems Own WARS...and WE DEMS are GREAT AT WAR! We will succeed...because this won't be Vietnam....but International Peace which Jimmy Carter has always worked for.

It will be the Legacy of Us Dems that we Brought World Peace!

GO FOR IT!