A few replies -- Doug, Barabara, jbor, Richard

[The Great Quail]

Doug:

>Yeah,  r/jbor/rjackson/?, they called protesters aganst the Vietnam war all
>kinds of names, too.  Funny thing, the protesters turned out to be right
>and the war hawks were wrong, and history has proven it so.

Well, first of all, I think MalignD made some excellent points. But 
beyond that, I'd like to add that you should recall not all protest 
against the Vietman war was one monolithic bloc. Personally, I think 
the Vietman war was an atrocity, and a horrifying misstep in 
America's development. It is especially painful when you realize that 
we could have had an ally and a friend in Ho Chi Minh. But rather 
than appraise the situation correctly, our leaders were looking 
through a lens tainted by that great bugaboo, Communism.

I do agree that many protesters against Vietman were in the moral 
right; but some were advocates of far more radical causes than simple 
withdrawal. So again I have a minor objection in the way Doug is 
painting terms in black or white, apocalyptic narrative: the correct 
and noble war protesters and the evil war hawks.

Worse than this, however, is his willingness to equate the current 
stream of protest with protest of Vietnam. And this equation, which 
again suppresses any difference, let alone nuance, allows Doug to 
draw from a well of moral justification which may not be appropriate 
in these circumstances.

But worse of all is the increasing level of hysteria and 
irresponsibility of the NPs he's been lately passing along. One uses 
a black moment of CIA stupidity to indicate the CIA should be a 
suspect in the Anrthrax attack, posing some conspiracy that ranks up 
there with ZOG. One claims that the US is *entirely* responsible for 
Osama bin Laden, basically stating that all this is our fault. 
(Indeed, that Pilger post almost painted him out to be a hero.) 
Surely Doug can't be passing these along as reflections of his own 
beliefs, and yet whenever someone asks him to comment upon them 
personally, he demurs, retreating behind his paternal mask and 
claiming he is only offering them up for discussion -- all the while 
he generally refuses to discuss them himself. Is it any wonder that 
to some extent Doug is becoming the sum of his NP postings, and is 
therefore even more subject to demonization than usual?

And having said *that,* I would also like to mention that I do not 
think that Doug should be silenced, or even moderated. And unlike 
jbor, who makes many reasonable points, I do not feel that it is 
useful to imply that Doug is trying to do the same thing as bin 
Laden. Doug may dislike America intensely, and he is certainly 
virulent and a fanatic, but his words have every right to be heard, 
and he is far from advocating violence or havoc.

Barbara writes,
>And, Quail, I gave that opinion piece you blasted a once-over and 
>thought it read pretty well. I think maybe you SHOULD pick it apart. 
>As they say, put up or shut up.

Well, if you think it read "pretty well," I honestly doubt that 
anything I could say would change your opinion. Franlkly, its 
numerous flaws seem self evident to my politics, as would any 
critique of such a complex system that both excused bin Laden for his 
actions, as well as laid the entire situation at the door of some 
ill-defined concept of American imperialism. To me, it was so shrill 
and tedious that I would rather not waste my time. However, I would 
recommend this piece, which though written before the Gulf War, has a 
lot to say about the current situation:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

I don't want to fob off a request to elucidate my beliefs with a 
link, but in this case, really, it says more than I ever could and 
much better.

Richard writes,

>My keyboard contains a delete key.  If yours is anything like mine, 
>it does also.

I am not sure how much of you reply is in anyway related to what I 
posted, nor do I see why it deserved the above comment. The fact is, 
Doug posts dozens of NP articles to the List, and then laments that 
we are "not exposed." It's that bullshit statement I have issue with. 
As I have mentioned numerous times, I am glad Doug posts these 
Leftists, Pacifist, Communist, Peacenik,  whatever, postings. Some 
have food for thought, and some sharpen my own opinions by fostering 
a sense of disagreement in me. And then again some, like the Pilger 
piece, are pure drivel.

Also, Richard, your following tirade against US actions -- why? I 
have posted also a few times that I deplore numerous US actions, many 
of the ones you listed. I am not even calling for Chomsky's head; I 
think he makes intelligent points, and I agree that we have to look 
more closely at policies which foment hatred of us. I do not, 
however, always agree with him, nor do I think he's the saint that 
many Lefties do. (Not just on this List.) I think that some people -- 
Chomsky included -- tend to overlook the accomplishments of the West, 
and tend to excuse certain mind-sets in "developing" countries.

>As noted elsewhere, should we now sanction the British bombing of 
>Boston Mass. to reduce the financial support to the IRA?  Which way 
>is it?

Oh come on! There's quite a difference, and you know it. We do not, 
as a state, support the IRA. Private citizens in numerous countries 
make donations to various terrorist organizations. That's different 
than state support or harboring known criminals and refusing any 
legal action to be taken against them.

And let's not overlook the real national self-interest involved here 
in this so-called war against international terrorism. Obviously we 
are targeting the Jihad, because they are at war against us. Past 
that, things get muddled and compromised, I agree. But you have to 
start somewhere, and self-interest and self-protection seem a good, 
logical place.

>Or do we deplore the killing of civilians anywhere and at any time?

I hope so, and I hope that's what this country, and the world, is 
evolving towards.

>If we are speaking English, Jihad translates as Crusade. Please 
>leave Jihad to Islamic scholars.

Oh, really. How petty. If we are speaking English, I suppose we 
shouldn't use the word "Islamic," either? Nor do I think that "jihad" 
-- a word THEY are using to describe the war against us -- is ground 
only for Islamic scholars. That's just silly. I am an intelligent 
person who is even now trying to learn more about Islam, I am 
entirely justified in using the word in this context. (And yes, I 
know it has another meaning, that of a more positive "struggle." But 
hey, so did "Mein Kampf.") And finally, "Jihad" does not in fact 
directly translate into "Crusade," they have different concepts both 
in original intent and modern usage.

--Quail