Farrakhan’s whole movement is a MAJOR sect of distorted Islam itself. Talk about pot kettle black!
Ummm… I believe that’s “pubic figure”.
My only cite for my assertion is contained in my post. The phrase “it seems” indicates that this is only my opinion. An opinion formed by the fact that many governments hostile to the official US administration (Syria, Cuba, Libya, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Yugoslavia) have turned to Jackson as an alternative. The man must have some international respect it seems.
ahem–“You got a cite for that sweeping generalization?”
Not quite sure what your point is here. Jackson has dealt with nations with a Muslim population before, so I can’t see how that would matter.
Granted Jackson can be seen as a bit “media-hungry” at times, but he has done quite a bit of good with his career too. His prominence has given him a national platform which he uses to direct attention at problems of inequality and racism in our society. Yes, he sometimes doesn’t choose the best issues to advocate (the Decateur schoolkids, for instance), but a great many people in this country do respect him and look upon him as a leader. I can’t help but think that part of the viciousness of the attacks on this Civil Rights Leader is due to a thinly veiled racism. (and this last comment is not directed at you China Guy)
Um, yes, we don’t like Jackson, therefore, we=racist.
:rolleyes:
Well, it isn’t, really, except to the extent that it highlights that some of us think he’s a hypocrite with the moral authority of a stoat. That said, if a stoat can get those aid workers out before the sky falls in in Afghanistan, and if he wants to go – which it appears he does – then good luck to him.
[sub]Really, I don’t think much of Rev Jackson, but…[/sub]
Remember Thomas Jefferson? Generally regarded as a Great American, Founder of the Republic? Had a kid, out of wedlock? By a slave he owned?
Sometimes private ‘stoats’ can show public greatness.
[sub]…or sometimes they champion thugs in Decateur.[/sub]
SQUEE, this is more of a Great Debate, and it’s one I know has been done before, but personally I’m not much for the “privately he’s a worthless human being but publicly he’s a hero!” school of thought. Which may of course just be me.
I never said he shouldn’t go – I don’t care if he does or not. But I don’t think much of him as a person, and I therefore don’t think much of him as a public person. I don’t differentiate between the two, though neither do I tell anyone else that they should not.
JJ has no authority to represent the United States. He is not an elected official nor is he appointed by one.
He has no more authority to represent the U.S. than any one of us.
I think the authorities should prohibit him from going based on the potential harm he could cause.
squeegee wrote:
Oh …
Mares eat stoats,
And does eat stoats,
And little lambs eat ivy.
(A kid’ll eat ivy, too. Wouldn’t you?)
Jesse Jackson didn’t “negotiate” s*** with Milosevic. Actually, the right reverend well-meaning buffoon played right into Milosevic’s hands.
By showing up in Belgrade, Jackson gave Milosevic an out–Milosevic could give up the captured U.S. soldiers, and then could seem to all the CNN that he was a reasonable man who could be dealt with, and was being bullied by an unreasonable United States.
As a result, Clinton had a much harder time keeping the coalition together, particularly with Russia and other Slavic nations who were receptive to that message to begin with.
In releasing those three troopers, Milosevic gave up nothing at all, while in the process gaining a resounding propaganda victory in the media.
The winners? Milosevic and Jackson. The losers? The United States and the Kosovar people.
There is a real danger of the same thing being played out in Afghanistan: Suppose Jackson goes and win the release of the Americans (the max penalty for them is deportation, anyway, I believe).
The Taliban once again give up nothing. The Americans in prison mean nothing at all to them. But what do they gain? A chance to look to all the world like a beleagured underdog being bullied by the U.S. again–a chance to look like reasonable men, instead of the intransigent monsters they really are.
This will cause the coalition to wither and fray, particularly in the moderate Arab states, and prevent the kind of decisive victory against terrorism the United States wants. Jesse Jackson risks destroying the U.S. ability to follow through the operation.
Suppose Jackson even comes back with Bin Laden? Who wins? A: Jackson and the Taliban.
This isn’t about Bin Laden. Bin Laden is incidental. There are thousands of terrorists behind him. The Taliban shelters them, and allows them to train and recruit and raise funds on Afghan soil.
The United States has not defined victory in terms of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden. Victory is defined in terms of the break up of the Al Qaeda organization itself, among others, and the destruction of terrorist training camps and other facilities, as well as the undermining and destruction of regimes such as the Taliban which support and shelter them.
If the Taliban offer anything at all, it will be a gambit. By appearing to negotiate in good faith, the Taliban will undermine the coalition, and give Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia an easy out. And it will then become impossible for the United States to achieve its aims without alienating or inciting the Muslim world even more.
And Jackson is blundering right into it, and thereby giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
It’s terrible to see, but not surprising, because Jackson is a stupid, stupid man.
panzermanpanzerman: Unbelievable. Your hatred (and I’m hardly a fan myself) for JJ seems to blinded you.
I wonder if those three troopers would agree with you; they were certainly “winners”. Or don’t they count?
Milosovic’s ‘propoganda victory’ didn’t help him one whit. He thought he was gaining something, and nobody was fooled. And those three troopers came home. Sounds like a good deal to me.
That is, unless you’re willing to casually jettison captives being held by the enemy – is that your contention? “Death with honor” preferable to release? If so I disagree: let’s send Jackson and heck, Bozo the Clown and Rocky the Flying Squirrel and anyone else who can sweet talk these jerks into releasing our people.
If it works, great. If not, we tried.
Then we still do what’s necessary in the kick-butt department once our people are safe.
Hey panzerman2x, Milosevic with his actions also stopped Iran from sending aid and reinforcements to their Muslim brothers in Kosovo, didn’t it? Also stopped those bombs from falling in his country, and prevented his arrest and trial. just what kind of history are you reading?
Jesse Jackson does not represent the USA of which I am a citizen. He certainly does not represent me. Nor, for that matter, anyone I know.
Having said that, do we send him somewhere so he can annoy someone into sending us back our people? by all means. It will be that much more time he is not here annoying me, and anything he accomplishes is just fine by me. Jesse mugging for the camera is irritating for those who chose to watch it and I do not. The remote control is the great boon of western civilization, IMHO.
b.
That’s a pretty strong accusation, pmpm. Calling a person a traitor because he may (again) be able to accomplish something the establishment can’t.
I think the Taliban wish they had never grabbed those eight people in the first place, and if they think they can save face by releasing them to Jesse Jackson, so be it.
The Taliban have had it, and releasing the prisoners (or turning over OBL) isn’t going to change that. Most of the Muslim world seems to want them out.
BTW; The people of the Phillipines definitely know who Jesse Jackson is. Especially the Moro.
Peace,
mangeorge
One other correction:
They’re accused of proselytizing Christianity. According to reports, the penalties can range from expulsion to death.
The penalty that the Taleban imposed on the last two groups of Christian caught proselytizing was a jail term amounting to “time served” and immediate deportation. This group was expected to have the same punishment as recently as September 10. Now there are “unexplained” delays in their trial, making it appear that they have become hostages.
Jackson represents no one but Jackson and his own PR. However, despite the strange spin given both the Sierra Leone and Kosovo stories in this thread (that seem to contradict facts published elsewhere on those cases), Jackson has been successful freeing prisoners in the past.
As I noted in the Pit thread on this subject (shortened here):
-
The State Department gets to disavow any authority for Jackson, making no concessions.
-
Jesse and “madmen” get photo-ops.
-
U.S. citizens get to come home.
-
Jesse haters get to gnash teeth and complain that Jesse got a photo op.
It’s usually a win-win-win for everyone.
<<Jackson has been successful freeing prisoners in the past.>>
Jackson never freed anybody.
It was Milosevic that freed U.S servicemen, and only because he knew he could undermine the U.S. led coalition and gain propaganda points by so doing.
Mangeorge: <<Calling a person a traitor because he may (again) be able to accomplish something the establishment can’t. >>
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t call him a traitor. I said he’s giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Not because he’s a traitor, but because he’s a grandstanding dupe.
squeegee: <<I wonder if those three troopers would agree with you; they were certainly “winners”. Or don’t they count?>>
capacitor: <<…Also stopped those bombs from falling in his country, and prevented his arrest and trial. just what kind of history are you reading?>>
Ok. So the president was driving a truck, with Jesse Jackson kvetching at him from the back seat. Jesse says he wants to drive. The president says, “no, this is my truck, I’m driving.”
So Jesse reaches out and grabs the steering wheel in a fit of pique and tries to steer anyway.
The truck lurches and careens for a spell, but the president regains control and gets it back on the road and gets it to where he’s trying to go.
So it’s your position that because everything came out right in the end, Jesse Jackson’s grabbing the wheel from him wasn’t a stupid thing to do?
<< Milosovic’s ‘propoganda victory’ didn’t help him one whit. He thought he was gaining something, and nobody was fooled.>>
Nonsense. The Russians were fooled. There was substantial risk of the Russian government becoming unstable thanks to translavic nationalism. The Russian people were furious at the United States, and public sentiment was with the Serbs all along. Russian instability was the biggest risk of the operation, both for the United States and for the Russian government.
By giving Milosevic points in the press, Jackson exacerbated the risk, and made Clinton’s and Yeltsin’s jobs more difficult.
<<I wonder if those three troopers would agree with you; they were certainly “winners”. Or don’t they count?>>
Should it be U.S. policy to make concessions to hostage takers?
Are you contending there were concessions?
Do you have a citation that the Russian people actually reacted to Jackson’s visit and the freeing of the three soldiers in the way that you claim? The other issues of Slavic solidarity pre-dated the Kosovo situation by years and the Russian government dragged their heels at every point during the Kosovo event. Jackson’s visit was not even a nine day wonder, much less a pivotal point in almost losing Russia’s (tepid, at best) support.