Jimmy Carter lays wreath at Arafat Tomb

reply to post by FlyersFan


" In 1987, former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Pacepa described Arafat's sexual romps with his bodyguards in the book "Red Horizons." These body guards brought Arafat young boys to rape. Arafat would rape his body guards as well.

In his book (and this has been confirmed) he relates about conversations with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to teach Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization military movements. Munteaunu exposed Arafats ‘loud sex romps’ with his bodyguards. He also exposed that the guards brought him boys to rape.

Munteaunu, spent months pulling together secret reports about Arafat (whose real name was Rahman al – Oudwa) from Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian intelligence agencies as well as Romanian files. The international intelligence reports were full of accounts of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teen-ager and ending with his bodyguards and the boys that were brought to him by the bodyguards. "

I knew he was a sadistic creep, but had no idea about this, but it does not surprise me, it fits him to a "T".

Do you think he is burning in HELL now?

Originally posted by toasted
Do you think he is burning in HELL now?

I have no idea. That's up to God. All I know is that he does NOT deserve to have a wreath put at his tomb by a POTUS.

HERE is the story

And there you have it folks!

Hamas now says that they have received a 'BOOST TO THEIR LEGITIMACY' due to the Carter visit.

You know, I agreee that we shouldn't be laying wreaths at the graves of those who are directly responsible for the deaths of so many people across the world through unprovoked attacks.

I think thats a very very honourable sentiment.

Long list of people though, and theres more than a few in the current US administration that won't be getting any wreaths laid, aren't there?

"For most of us, freedom is an idea and not an actuality. When we talk about freedom, we want to be free outwardly, to do what we like, to travel, to be free to express ourselves in different ways, free to think what we like. The outward expression of freedom seems to be extraordinarily important, especially in countries where there is tyranny, dictatorship; and in those countries where outward freedom is possible one seeks more and more pleasure, more and more possessions.

If we are to inquire deeply into what freedom implies, to be inwardly, completely and totally free - which then expresses itself outwardly in society, in relationship - then we must ask, it seems to me, whether the human mind, heavily conditioned as it is, can ever be free at all. Must it always live and function within the frontiers of its own conditioning, so that there is no possibility of freedom at all? One sees that the mind, verbally understanding that there is no freedom here on this earth, inwardly or outwardly, then begins to invent freedom in another world, a future liberation, heaven and so on.

Put aside all theoretical, ideological, concepts of freedom so that we can inquire whether our minds, yours and mine, can ever be actually free, free from dependence, free from fear, anxiety, and free from the innumerable problems, both the conscious as well as those at the deeper layers of the unconscious. Can there be complete psychological freedom, so that the human mind can come upon something which is not of time, which is not put together by thought, yet which is not an escape from the actual realities of daily existence? Unless the human mind is inwardly, psychologically, totally free it is not possible to see what is true, to see if there is a reality not invented by fear, not shaped by the society or the culture in which we live, and which is not an escape from the daily monotony, with its boredom, loneliness, despair and anxiety. To find out if there is actually such freedom one must be aware of one's own conditioning, of the problems, of the monotonous shallowness, emptiness, insufficiency of one's daily life, and above all one must be aware of fear. One must be aware of oneself neither introspectively nor analytically, but actually be aware of oneself as one is and see if it is at all possible to be entirely free of all those issues that seem to clog the mind.

To explore, as we are going to do, there must be freedom, not at the end, but right at the beginning. Unless one is free one cannot explore, investigate or examine. To look deeply there needs to be, not only freedom, but the discipline that is necessary to observe; freedom and discipline go together ( not that one must be disciplined in order to be free). We are using the word `discipline' not in the accepted, traditional sense, which is to conform, imitate, suppress, follow a set pattern; but rather as the root meaning of that word, which is `to learn.' Learning and freedom go together, freedom bringing its own discipline; not a discipline imposed by the mind in order to achieve a certain result. These two things are essential: freedom and the act of learning. One cannot learn about oneself unless one is free, free so that one can observe, not according to any pattern, formula or concept, but actually observe oneself as one is. That observation, that perception, that seeing, brings about its own discipline and learning; in that there is no conforming, imitation, suppression or control whatsoever - and in that there is great beauty.

Our minds are conditioned - that is an obvious fact - conditioned by a particular culture or society, influenced by various impressions, by the strains and stresses of relation- ships, by economic, climatic, educational factors, by religious conformity and so on. Our minds are trained to accept fear and to escape, if we can, from that fear, never being able to resolve, totally and completely, the whole nature and structure of fear. So our first question is: can the mind, so heavily burdened, resolve completely, not only its conditioning, but also its fears? Because it is fear that makes us accept conditioning.

Do not merely hear a lot of words and ideas - which are really of no value at all - but through the act of listening, observing your own states of mind, both verbally and nonverbally, simply inquire whether the mind can ever be free - not accepting fear, not escaping, not saying, `I must develop courage, resistance,' but actually being fully aware of the fear in which one is trapped. Unless one is free from this quality of fear one cannot see very clearly, deeply; and obviously, when there is fear there is no love.

So, can the mind actually ever be free of fear? That seems to me to be - for any person who is at all serious - one of the most primary and essential questions which must be asked and which must be resolved. There are physical fears and psychological fears. The physical fears of pain and the psychological fears as memory of having had pain in the past, and the idea of the repetition of that pain in the future; also, the fears of old age, death, the fears of physical insecurity, the fears of the uncertainty of tomorrow, the fears of not being able to be a great success, not being able to achieve - of not being somebody in this rather ugly world; the fears of destruction, the fears of loneliness, not being able to love or be loved, and so on; the conscious fears as well as the unconscious fears. Can the mind be free, totally, of all this? If the mind says it cannot, then it has made itself incapable, it has distorted itself and is incapable of perception, of understanding; incapable of being completely silent, quiet; it is like a mind in the dark, seeking light and never finding it, and therefore inventing a `light' of words, concepts, theories. How is a mind which is so heavily burdened with fear, with all its conditioning, ever to be free of it? Or must we accept fear as an inevitable thing of life? - and most of us do accept it, put up with it. What shall we do? How shall I, the human being, you as the human being, be rid of this fear? - not be rid of a particular fear, but of the total fear, the whole nature and structure of fear?"

J. Krishnamurti

I remember a time when Arafat wouldn't go anywhere without his Baby Wipes.
Maybe that's what Carter should have layed on the Ara-Tomb instead.

Originally posted by neformore
theres more than a few in the current US administration that won't be getting any wreaths laid, aren't there?

They shouldn't be getting any.

Originally posted by Silenceisall
"For most of us, ....

I have no idea what any of that was about .. and what it had to do with a POTUS honoring Arafat.

reply to post by FlyersFan


fear is the root of the problem.

It's too bad Jimmy Carter can no longer be arrested and charged for sedition.
This country needs to bring back the Sedition Act.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You're afraid. Carter laying a wreath at Arafat's tomb scares you. Carter speaking to Hamas scares you. Let Carter be his own man and make his own judgments, who are you to decide who this man can or cannot meet with, or can or cannot pay tribute to?

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
You're afraid.

:shk: That's pathetic. I'm pissed off.

Carter is honoring a murdering terrorist and a child rapist.
Carter is a former POTUS, so his acts reflect upon my country.
Carter is going againt what our State Department and all our elected officials in Washington (both Dems and Republicans) say.
Carter's self-righteous actions have bolstered the terrorists. Even the terrorists say 'he has legitimized us' (see previous post).

who are you to decide who this man can or cannot meet with, or can or cannot pay tribute to?

I am an American with FREEDOM OF SPEECH and I can voice my disgust all I want. Oh .. and it's AGAINST THE LAW for any American to do business with, or meet with, Hamas.

If he wants to be a moron and give tribute to some pedophile rapist and mass murderer here in America, he can. (considering it's Carter and his brain is busted, he probably will at some point) But he isn't allowed to do it with Hamas.

What disturbs me is that Jimmy Carter was probably the most intelligent president since Eisenhower. You do not command a nuclear submarine, if you are a "C" student in college. I suspect that former President Carter is suffering undiagnosed mental issues.

Originally posted by groingrinder
I suspect that former President Carter is suffering undiagnosed mental issues.

I had someone say to me not to be so hard on him because he is obviously suffering from some mental health problem.

I know his Carter Center is big on mental health issues.
His wife has been an advocate for many decades.

Hillary was big on affordable health care. Rosalyn was big on mental health issues.