NP Afghanistan

[jbor]

ocorrain at esatclear.ie wrote:

> Oh for Chrissake stop using words like "Anti-American".

I wrote: "the anti-American position you have staked out in regard to the
current situation in Afghanistan". I did not and do use the term as a
denunciation. It certainly appears to me that you (i.e. you and Doug, at
least) are against (i.e. "anti-") the American-led military intervention in
Afghanistan, the U.S. food drops there, the current U.S. govt., U.S.
intelligence organisations, U.S. allies, U.S. corporations, and the attitude
of 90% of the American population. Further, I can't honestly say that either
Doug or yourself has expressed views which could be similarly called
anti-Taliban. As the current conflict is between the U.S. (and its
international and Afghani allies) and the Taliban regime, I don't see any
problem with the reference as I phrased it. We're discussing a military
conflict in which there are two sides. Would you prefer "pro-Taliban"? As
I've said to you before, it's becoming more and more apparent to me that
that is in fact the stance you have adopted.

I am "anti-American" in regard to much, if not all, U.S. foreign policy
prior to 9/11. I am a pacifist, but I also recognise and acknowledge that
appeasement in the current situation would have been foolish and
irresponsible.

> They don't mean much,
> and recall the House Committee of Un-American activities. We live in scary
> times, when internal repression looms as the US Government chases its tail
> and even considers allowing torture under certain circumstances. Do we learn
> nothing from history? We've been through it before. There were no commies
> under the bed, but they were in the intelligence services alright.
> America's a country, not a cause.

And you are against the actions of that country's (democratically-elected)
govt., and the attitudes of the great majority of its people.
 
>> the way you address anyone who disagrees with you as war-mongering slime,
> 
> I don't know about slime, but you are war-mongerers. It's simple. Look up the
> word: you are in favour of war, like many on the list.

warmonger. one who seeks to bring about war [Oxford]

Which, patently, is inapt. I don't think anyone who posts to the list is in
favour of war as a general rule, or "fosters warlike ideas". [Collins] The
term is offensive and inaccurate when Doug uses it, and it's offensive and
inaccurate when you use it.

> Fair enough, it's a
> point of view, and while I disagree completely with it, I respect it. But
> call it what it is: war-mongerering. If you're afraid of the term, then
> you're probably afraid of the reality. Think about it.

This is very patronising. I know what the word means, and I know the manner
and tone in which it has been used. So do you. It is inaccurate and
offensive. It has been intended as an insult, and it rides roughshod over
what many contributors have written and believe.

>> even more have had enough of your odious propagandising, and just about
>> everyone is fed up to the back teeth with your sanctimonious moralising and
>> hypocritical accusations.
> 
> Such a flurry of adjectives! Odious, sanctimonious, hypocritical. All
> evocative, and all used incorrectly.

You mean to say that you disagree with them, which is fine. But to say that
they are "used incorrectly" is incorrect.

> As to propaganda, you should explain
> your use of "Anti-American". What does it mean? Does it mean anti-war?
> Pacifist? Is it anti-American to point out the consequences of the U.S.
> devastation of Afghanistan?

See above. As I said before, I think that the choice was made *for* "us",
not *by* "us". No credible alternative has been proposed.
 
> One of the remarkable things about the U.S. Constitution, which has served as
> a model for democratic constitutions around the world is its celebration of
> the right to freedom of speech. You exercise yours, I excercise mine. Both
> are pro-American in a far more meaningful way than your McCarthy-ite use of
> the term.

I think you are somewhat confused. I have been accused, by Doug, of using
the term in a "McCarthy-ite" manner. I am not. Put simply, you are against
the American actions and consensus of public opinion in regard to the
current situation in Afghanistan.
 
>> As far as your "supporters" - Kurt-Werner, "jbframe", "toby levy", "richard
>> fiero", "barbara100", tiarnan - what percentage of those would you classify
>> as "anonymous emailers".
> 
> Meaningless. 

Precisely. Take this one up with Doug.

> Look at the headers for the email. If you want to find out a
> little about us, do a little digging. Plug the email addresses into a search
> engine. Ditch the paranoia. I assure you that I am not Millison, nor one of
> his supporters. 

So now you know how absurd and offensive his "dogpack" epithet is, which is
what irked me enough to respond in the first place.

> We may agree on certain things about this war, that does not
> make us members of the same Whole Sick Crew.

And the same can be said for everyone else who contributes to the list.

> If you're so worried about authentication, why don't you sign your email
> digitally?

I'm not, and what would that actually prove anyway? Such "signatures" are
superfluous due to the nature of the medium. In offlist correspondence I
generally sign off personally. Don't be deceived: "anonymous emailers" is
Doug's bugaboo, not mine.

best