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

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Quail wrote:
"Worse than this, however, is his [Doug's] 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."

I see, that was then and this is now.  Like Pynchon thought--WWII was WWII
and Vietnam was Vietnam.  Uh-uh, I see your point now. That was then, and
this is now, no 'connections' what-so-ever!  'Yes, yes.'  I see your point
now, Quail.




----- Original Message -----
From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: A few replies -- Doug, Barabara, jbor, Richard


> 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
>