MSNBC and CNN (to lesser degree) really Trashing Carter's Plagerism.

Some Maps and his Philosophy of I/P Peace seem to be at issue.

How do folks here feel about the Media Trash to discredit him for plagerism compared to how he tried to work for Peace. I understand that many think he sided with Iran and is opposed to Israel.

But, I do think..(having lived through IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS..that he tried to do his best).

Why would Carter Plagerize a book to discredit the Middle East. And, that one of the Carter Center employees would resign because Carter was so distorted in what he did...taking quotes out of context and maps, too.

I thought CNN's Blitzer was fairer to Carter than MSNBC who wanted him "tarred and feathered." :shrug:

good for the world....

My Mom is so pissed off at him.

Since he's written a number of books and there has never been a whisper of plagiarism before, how old is he and when is the last time he had a full medical workup?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/06/america/NA_GEN_US_Jimmy_Carter_Criticism.php

Carter Center fellow resigns, criticizes former US President Carter's new book
The Associated Press Published: December 6, 2006

ATLANTA: A Carter Center fellow and longtime adviser to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has resigned after sharply criticizing Carter's new book on Palestine, and a Jewish human rights group said it obtained thousands of signatures from supporters also protesting the book.

Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel at Emory University, resigned as a Carter Center fellow for Middle East Affairs after reading Carter's 21st book, titled "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," which was released last week.

<snip>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Wednesday on its Web site that Stein said he was "sad but not sorry" about his resignation.

The newspaper said Stein sent a letter full of blunt criticism of the book to Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner and John Hardman, executive director of the center.

The newspaper printed an excerpt of the letter saying the book "is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments ... Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."<snip>


ALSO 6000 have joined and signed onto a statement "President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center..."


ALTHOUGH A SPECIFIC PROBLEM IS MAP THEFT

ROSS: The maps that are in his book, it certainly appears as if they were taken from my book. Those maps are maps that I created. They didn't exist. The fact is, when we did the Clinton ideas, when we did Camp David, we presented ideas, percentages, criteria. After the fact, I created maps based on that, and he's used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution.

---

Carter's words have led to an outcry among Jewish groups, who have launched petitions criticizing his use of the word "apartheid" — the system of legal racial separation once used in South Africa — to describe Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Carter, though, said he stands by his use of the word, and cited the sprawling complex of fences, electric sensors and concrete slabs that Israel built along the West Bank as an example of the divide.

"I think it's worse, in many ways, than apartheid in South Africa," Carter said.

---

Carter said Friday that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 13 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary title. "When I decided to write this book, I didn't even think about involving Ken, from ancient times, to come in and help."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/09/america/NA_GEN_US_Jimmy_Carter_Criticism.php

I assume he would have known what to expect when he published the book. It's not like this is the first time this sort of thing has happened.

It is true that it is far from the first time that Jimmy has been savaged by the talking heads on the TV.

that it is a perfectly legitimate response to a book that by many accounts is factually wrong and contains many glaring errors and is incredibly biased against Israel, putting virtually all of the blame of the I/P situation on Israel.

Other posters in I/P think it is a giant PNAC/AIPAC conspiracy to oppress the Palestinian people, because "zionists" want to oppress the Palestinian people. (Of course that is the same as Blood Libel, but no-one here cares..)

says so, it must be true.

http://www.mcc.org/gallery/04_09/photo_09.html

Coz those "many accounts" are total bullshit.

can defend the claim that this book is "factually wrong and contains many glaring errors and is incredibly biased against Israel, putting virtually all of the blame of the I/P situation on Israel." I'd love to see you try.

Well, we did correctly put the blame on the white government and its operatives for the injustices in South Africa, simply for the fact that they had the vast preponderance of power- ability to change the situation- and the blacks did not.

If you mean to attack people like me, I think Jewish tribalism is extremely morally blind and selfrighteous toward the Palestinians. (It's not just me, btw.) I wish you would explain to me the justice of land confiscation perpetrated essentially 100% by Jewish Israelis against Palestinians. Jewish settlements in the West Bank are on land, 64% of which has been taken from private ownership by Palestinians- and the plethora of roads, likewise. Whether any of the land has ever been paid for or any other compensation has been given is doubtful. And just why were all those Palestinian villages dynamited and planted over with trees in 1948-50? As for all the rest, the distinction between the condition that exists, apartheid, and colonialism is obscure to anyone who isn't indoctrinated into approval. Have you ever looked at the Israeli laws about intermarriage of Jewish Israelis and Palestinians (of whatever religious group)? The spouse cannot be given Israeli citizenship, and the legal status of the children is technically not settled iirc. That is definitely apartheid.

The only side that ever come to the table and tries to achieve peace is Israel, and the Palestinians always reject it...

Yet in the book Carter paints the picture as though Israel was the one who has rejected peace proposal after peace proposal.

And as for that law, I would like a source. Preferably not the same sources that say that Jews use the blood of Muslims and Christians for making Passover bread.

You were asked to back up an assertion you made about the book, and all that was done was to post some Israel is Good, Palestinians are Bad line of black and white thinking. Rabbi Lerner has said that Carter points out the faults of both sides, yet you appear to be disputing that. So have you actually read the book, and if so why are you coming to such a different conclusion than Rabbi Lerner?

I see I'm going to have to keep you on topic to make this a dialogue.

Have you in fact read the book, so that you can truly say "Yet in the book Carter paints the picture as though Israel was the one who has rejected peace proposal after peace proposal."? Or have you only heard this from "pro-Israel" propaganda sources?

I happen to remember something called The Oslo Accords, so your assertion isn't factually true. About it being emotionally true, Barak and his people put a bad faith proposal on the table for Taba that all sides knew the Palestinian side couldn't accept. People like Dennis Ross say this in print. As for more recent 'proposals', they may not be in as much overt bad faith, perhaps. But these proposals are wrongly focussed on narrow problems, and if the Palestinian side agreed with them they would get cheated out of compensation and leverage on larger issues. It's dishonorable, ignoble, and deceitful on the Israeli side, whatever one may think of Palestinian behavior.

As for some sort of inherent merit to making 'peace proposals', the Germans had all kinds of peace proposals for their enemies too during the Second World War. Imagine if the Allies had accepted any of them.

I couldn't find the articles about the exact incident this year, but this column outlines the perversion of ideals and justice that is marriage/citizenship policy in and of the State of Israel- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=marriage+citizenship&itemNo=794540

I'm thrilled that you feel it necessary to insinuate that I am anti-Semite. How do you know that I am not e.g. a convert? (I came very close to it, btw.) Are the only allies and friends you can bear the people who leave their integrity and standards at the door when dealing with matters of the state of Israel? Is this claim of being and aspiring to being "Light Unto the Nations" just an insincere sales pitch to keep a silly tribalism going? I read the words of A.J. Heschel about Jerusalem and the Sabbath, and then I read all the false witness and selfrighteous narrow tribalism that calls itself 'pro-Israel' here. I think of Martin Buber's parable in Ten Rungs of the Hasidim, 'The Stork'. "In Hebrew, the name of the stork is hasidah, the caring one, because he gives so much to his offspring. Why, then, is the stork deemed one of the unclean birds in the Torah? Because he only gives care to his own."

So, are you going to answer my question about the land ownership of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the dynamited Palestinian villages and other Israeli colonialist behavior, or do I have to deal with more strawman arguments?

your original simplistic view of israeli citizenship/marriage etc falls far short of your apartheid label. Even a simplistic review of the laws shows contradictions, appeals etc of a relatively complex environment i.e. low level war with the Palestinians, that include enemies of the state, guest workers that stay, as well as asylum seekers etc.. In short your labeling is no more than hyperbole

and the dynamited Palestinians villages...there was also the destruction of mosques as well during those early years, there were attacks and counter attacks, massacres etc......thats what happens during wars, a country that has been attacked by several neighbors whos goals is to eliminate it doesnt really have to apology for fighting for its survival against all odds....need i remind you that much of israels population was made up of concentration camp survivors facing once again death....

they simply shouldnt have attacked israel....its called responsibility for ones actions. They gambled and lost and their is a cost for that.. Sad thing is they havent figured it out and they keep on trying and losing.

as far as 'bad faith" and the contradictions about oslo...its all been cleared up now. Israel has now left gaza twice...and each time receive missiles as a result...seems someone no matter what just has to keep on trying to kill israelis. The PA, like lebanon was and is a weak govt that cant control its own society, the result of such is clear: lebanon.

Oslo was doomed.... Bargoutti and others admitted that they planned intifada II and simply waited for the excuse to launch it.

to win you any friends Israel. When will you realize that?

Who would not respect a nation in such continuous danger from hate-filled neighbors that they relentlessly kill Israel's citizens with every thing from kitchen knives to massed armies for 60 years - and Israel with the more powerful army continues to try to negotiate peace while defending her citizens.

No other free nation on earth has ever exhibited such restraint.

But, don't take my word for it.

Check out the opinions of a few of the top Dems in line for the 2008 US administration.

Obama

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060110-obama_meets_shalom_offers_support_for_israel/index.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.wallace-wells.html

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/23183/edition_id/462/format/html/displaystory.html


Hillary

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/friedman200505251257.asp

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm


Gore

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Gore.html

Enjoy!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=788626&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

How pathetic. There certainly won't be much support, except for the fanatical few, for a "Bush Center" in the US.

looking for private funding is now "Israel"?

because many people in israel dislike him as much as any of us. That certainly goes for the Israeli Arab population. Although i suspect his overall support is higher in Israel in the general population than in the United States.

But Bush has not been as well-received by any govt on earth, his war on Iraq not supported more, than in Israel. Only Great Britain comes close.

your original simplistic view of israeli citizenship/marriage etc falls far short of your apartheid label. Even a simplistic review of the laws shows contradictions, appeals etc of a relatively complex environment i.e. low level war with the Palestinians, that include enemies of the state, guest workers that stay, as well as asylum seekers etc.. In short your labeling is no more than hyperbole

You're confusing material complexity with moral complexity.

and the dynamited Palestinians villages...there was also the destruction of mosques as well during those early years, there were attacks and counter attacks, massacres etc......thats what happens during wars, a country that has been attacked by several neighbors whos goals is to eliminate it doesnt really have to apology for fighting for its survival against all odds....need i remind you that much of israels population was made up of concentration camp survivors facing once again death....

Well, you have to either subscribe to a victor morality- 'shit happens, we'll sort it whenever we might feel like it, don't count on us ever bothering with that as we create our Utopia', or you have to subscribe to a victim morality- 'We are the abused and offended of the Earth, we demand justice here and now'. You can't have it both ways at once, which is what "pro-Israel" moralizing always demands. You can't assert arrogance and privilege and power, and yet demand pity and benefit of the doubt of others, at the same time. The world gives little benefit of the doubt to those who have power but no humility or integrity.

The fact of existence doesn't confer a moral right to exist- otherwise colonial occupations, and thus genocides of either intruders or natives, are justified. Israel is not in a fight for its material survival in the short run, that's a paranoid dogmatism worthy only only of contempt and mental derangement. Oh, and bringing up the Holocaust- is that a justification for amoral behavior and unwillingness to have humane standards? Does being a concentration camp survivor confer a kind of lottery ticket to go out and kill and dispossess other people, especially third parties?

Truth is, the engrained tradition of Israeli political criminality and terrorism, and the covert imperialism in I/P after WW2 precedes and has only exploited the Holocaust. The Jews who perpetrated the most well known crimes- blowing up the King David Hotel, Joshua Cohen who assassinated Count Bernadotte, the massacre at Deir Yassin, Menachim Begin who executed another Stern Gang member in the dunes of Tel Aviv etc- were in no way survivors of any trauma to themselves personally. They were right wing fanatics and murderous opportunists with depravity. You should read up a little bit about how David ben Gurion really viewed his situation in 1948 privately and the plans he had for the state of Israel- for all the victim PR, the Jewish side was better armed and had greater numbers in that war and knew it, and ben Gurion considered the war merely a stepping stone to greater conquest. By 1956- merely seven years on- he waged a war of aggression against the most powerful opponent. The 1967 war was waged within weeks of the first nuclear warheads being made operational at Dimona, and just as Nasser had ordered an end to the blockade of the Strait of Tiran under international pressure.

they simply shouldnt have attacked israel....its called responsibility for one's actions. They gambled and lost and their is a cost for that.. Sad thing is they havent figured it out and they keep on trying and losing.

Victor 'morality', clearly illustrated.... In the Modern world, whatever the causes of war, the "moral" element of occupation/confiscation ends with the dying out of the combatants. Unlike other countries, Israel actively prevents any form of return of the original inhabitant population to the land confiscated. All other mass disappropriations of land/properties of and since WW2 are slowly being reversed or nearing reversal all over Europe and parts of Asia. Israel is still persistent on things now considered de facto beyond the Modern moral pale, such as barring most Palestinians from visiting the graves of their relatives or villages they left. Visitation rights at the Dome of the Rock and other shrines are technically permitted, but the Israeli government and right wingers do all they can to cheat and diminish that. (Palestinians have also done some of that, such us digging up bits of the Temple Mount in ways to vandalize the archaeological record, but the relative levels of abuse are very onesided.)

No, the Palestinians haven't lost. They take more casualties and suffer more, but in one or two generations they will so outnumber Israelis, have Israel encircled with competent armies and weaponry, that the current Israeli strategy to rely on violence will end up destroying Israel. It's Israel's foolish supporters who confuse tactical victories with strategic ones, and whose enabling and continued reliance on violence keeps a scenario of necessary mutual mass murder alive and kicking.

as far as 'bad faith" and the contradictions about oslo...its all been cleared up now. Israel has now left gaza twice...and each time receive missiles as a result...seems someone no matter what just has to keep on trying to kill israelis. The PA, like lebanon was and is a weak govt that cant control its own society, the result of such is clear: lebanon.

Once again, a chosen blindness to the fact that only a comprehensive solution, not a unilateral piecemeal fiat of petty and temporary advantages, is the necessary route.

Oslo was doomed.... Bargoutti and others admitted that they planned intifada II and simply waited for the excuse to launch it.

And on the Israeli side, the radicals in search of a war assassinated Rabin and mowed down 30 worshippers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and have never actually ended their war on peaceable Israelis and Palestinians of any stripe. Meir Kahane may be dead, but the Settlers did more than enough to drive the confrontation and violence as well.

(I have posted this before -- but I think it remains relevant):

the simple reality is that with the exception of about 10 days in Taba, Egypt in Jan 2001 the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past 50 years.

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. links:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002 - link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba....

_________________________


The Arab Peace Initiative (Also known as the Saudi Peace Plan)

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer.

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

seems to be the one leveling the charges of "plagiarism" i.e. using a map (?) Isn't a map a map? Who copyrights a map? Isn't longitude and latitude kind of a set measurement? The whole thing is disgusting. Perhaps it is Ken Stein who needs to explain his attacks and loyalties. I am appalled that a national treasure like Jimmy Carter is vilified simply because he does not treat Israel as a retarded cousin no one can criticize.

the book "is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments ... Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."

LATER A SPECIFIC PROBLEM WAS NOTED - THE MAPS

ROSS: The maps that are in his book, it certainly appears as if they were taken from my book. Those maps are maps that I created. They didn't exist. The fact is, when we did the Clinton ideas, when we did Camp David, we presented ideas, percentages, criteria. After the fact, I created maps based on that, and he's used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution.

What is the plagerism?

How is he factually wrong?

lobby metes out to the poor, downtrodden and maligned Israelis, who have neither a voice in American public opinion nor any funding to compete with the billions the arrogant Palestinians are able to pour into their massive, relentless propaganda machine.

:yourock:

The ones they are talking about. A company sold him the maps, but the cable stations said they would not return their calls. Now if Carter bought the maps in good faith, how did he know they were taken from some place else.

And you do not hear them raise hell with Ann the Man with all the stuff she just tranferred word for word to her book. They have said absolutely nothing. I don't understand why they do stuff like that. But maybe it is because their viewership is falling off. People are sick as the devil over the type of stuff they spew and they are going to the internet.

And that is exactly why the republican media is trying to get control. That way there will be not free exchange in this country.

:eyes:

ACTION ALERT: CNN's Glenn Beck threatens Muslims with concentration camps

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2863432

Out of curiousity, why do you call this bit of hate aimed at Muslims an assertion, yet I can't recall you doing the same when it comes to anything to do with hate against Jews?

however that is not the assertion that was made.

The assertion was that CNN wants Muslims put in Concentration Camps. That is Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck is not all of CNN. Nice try, thanks for playing and proving that you have no proof of the wild accusation that CNN wants to put Muslims in Concentration Camps.

And now I'm also curious to know whether the same level of nit-picking goes into things when hateful things are said about Jews or whether it's just when it's about Muslims. btw, Glenn Beck works for CNN just like the idiots at Fox News work for Fox News. I doubt somehow you'd be using the same argument if people say something about comments made at Fox News...

And while yr here, I'm trying to round up people to carry out a little exercise Rabbi Lerner talked about in another thread. Here's the link. I'd be very interested to see yr answers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=158111&mesg_id=158314

To quote Tom Joad "CNN wants to put Muslims in Concentration Camps" which is not only intellectually dishonest it is factually dishonest. That is why it was an "assertion". Yes Glenn Beck works for CNN, but his contract gives him a very broad range of being able to say what he wants. As opposed to Fox which has a strict mandated policy of what is to be said and not said. That is not an assertion as it is well documented by organizations like FAIR.

To sum up: CNN has NEVER said that it wanted to round up Muslims. Glenn Beck HAS. (And as far as I know he is the ONLY CNN commentator to do so)

And I've asked you several times now whether you act the same way when hate against Jews is reported. Personally I find nitpicking a not particularly admirable trait in those sort of instances...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that is shown in prime time (7pm DAILY). He has repeatedly shown extreme hatred/antagonism toward Muslims/Arabs.

If David Duke were given a 2am five-minute slot once-a-month, you and i would call CNN an anti-Jewish/White supremacist corporation. Fortunately that is not the case.

But it seems perfectly fair to call CNN anti-Arab, if one of its star commentators can say the filth that often fills the program time of Glenn Beck.

It's the publisher's responsibility to clear rights for book materials. Authors frequently include copyrighted materials with their manuscripts, unaware of the source or the copyright status. Carter himself should have known better, but Carter's editor, along with the publisher's Rights and Permissions department, are the ones who must take the blame.

As for the factual errors and whatnot, Carter can say whatever he wants, factual or not, as long as he doesn't libel anyone. Books that take one political view or another always contain filtered truth (at best), just as religious books do.

I don't think much of Carter's view on I/P relations and solutions; he had his shot and didn't produce the goods. But I fully support his right to promulgate his views. The court of public opinion renders the only judgment needed.

Peace.

2 maps of the same territory look "almost the same".

Something very sinister about that...

The issue would seem to be if it was copied and edited. I'm a little skeptical, I see differences in the lines, both the line detail and the line style, but it's hard to be sure. I used to fiddle with such things in the past, a bit.

Both logic and a critical eye are verboten!

Your punishment is to give adulation and praise to Ann Coulters scholarship for 1 week.

Carter's frontal attack

As an ex-president, Jimmy Carter has intervened in some of the world's most troubled hot spots, trying to reduce tensions in North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Africa and Central America. But now he is staging a literary intervention with the publication of "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," a book that strongly criticizes Israel and the United States for blocking serious peace initiatives and exacerbating terrorism in the Middle East.

Carter's new book, which drew fierce criticism on the Internet even before it appeared in stores, pulls no punches: Although he deplores suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israeli society, he believes the central reasons for a stalled peace settlement is Israel's continuing refusal to give back the West Bank lands it occupied after the 1967 war and America's unflinching political support for Israel.

In his strongest passages, he blasts Israel's construction of a security wall between itself and Palestinians, saying the controversial structure is a brazen land grab by a minority of Israelis - an "imprisonment wall" that has encircled thousands of Palestinians on the West Bank and has become a form of economic apartheid.

"I wrote the book because I wanted to stimulate a debate in this country about what is actually going on in the Middle East," Carter said during an interview at a midtown hotel on the first day of his national book tour. "This is a subject which, in my mind, has rarely if ever been honestly debated or discussed in the United States."

http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=LT0612-3185

..