Fw: One last attempt?

[The Great Quail]

Carlton writes,

>The term has a long history and it has rarely been used in a benign fashion.

Yes, that much is true.

>Now I agree that Doug's ideas are frequently one-sided, that they 
>lack complexity, and are often ignorant of the moral ambiguity of 
>the situation, but calling him (or his posts) anti-American disturbs 
>me.

I still stand by my original statement, which said that some of the 
*information* that he passed along -- i.e.; his forwards -- expressed 
anti-American sentiments, which is 100% true. I also said they 
expressed numerous other anti-so and so sentiments. And frankly, I 
don't care if they are rabidly pro- or anti-American. I am not saying 
that being anti-American is necessarily a bad thing. I was just 
pointing out that some of his information is strongly biased.

I am afraid that I am being taken out of context. I do not think Doug 
himself is anti-American. I do not think Doug is necessarily 
pro-American, either. Nor am I attaching any moral, ethical, or 
patriotic value to the terms, which are already easily made 
subjective. However, I think I have been clear, in that some of his 
forwards have expressed consistent views that seem to espouse 
consistent and non-constructive America bashing.

>Sometimes being anti-American is a good thing.

I never said it wasn't. I know that some of my own views may be 
considered "anti-American." I for one believe that some of my views 
are actually more American in spirit than the narrow-minded redneck 
"American" jackasses attacking them. (Gay rights and so on.) I was 
trying to use the phrase "anti-American" to mean a general feeling of 
being against America and her policies as a national entity. Like 
Pilger. Like Eat the State.

>I still think Doug's posts are somewhat misguided, but I would 
>prefer to characterize his beliefs as 'wrong',

I hesitate to say "wrong," that's a judgment, not a description. 
(Unless he is simply factually wrong, of course.)

>or 'strident', or 'doctrinaire' or what have you, than anti-American.

His *posts,* yes. But again, I am afraid that my comments have been 
recontextualized by Doug's distorting response. Please go back to my 
original post, which was an explanation to Doug why Terrance might 
think he was endorsing bin Laden's opinions:

* * * * * * *
Doug to Terrance:

>Sober up and read the post, I wrote:  "this is the bin Laden view, per his
>video
>statements since September 11".  Need a translation?

My reply:

"Actually, yes. Yes, he does, and I do also, and I bet a few others, 
too. Why? Because of your use of "pissed on" to describe our 
relationship to the Taliban, hardly a neutral statement, and one that 
opens up the notion that you may have sympathies with them. Because 
you increasingly seem to be actually *believing* bin Laden when he 
claims his grievances, showing a stunning lack of appreciation for 
both the man's history amongst the Islamic nations, and his 
capacities as simple manipulator. Because you consistently indicate 
that what we are doing right now is the moral equivalent of what they 
did on the 11th. Because you continually pass along a stream of 
anti-American, anti-Colonial, anti-Western, anti-Imperialism, 
anti-Captitalism, anti-Bush information, showing absolutely zero 
concern for any legitimate opposition to these viewpoints, and 
accusing anyone with opposing sentiments of making the attempt to 
stifle dialogue. And most importantly, because when it comes to 
anything the West has done, especially America, anything at all, you 
turn your vast intelligence upon it to unravel conspiracies, lies, 
distortions, manipulations, crypto-fascist leanings, hidden agendas, 
and sheer bloodlust. And yet -- and yet -- when it comes to turning 
the same restless, skeptical intelligence on bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or 
any non-Western sources, that intelligence suddenly fails, and seems 
to find their goals, claims, and statements pure, direct, and honest, 
and they are reported utterly unopposed and without the slightest 
shred of cynicism or even skepticism."

* * * * * * *
>p.s. by the way, I'm not arguing here that you're "foaming at the 
>mouth with patriotism and jingo ire". I realize the gist of your 
>comments, but I do think that anti-American is not the best term to 
>describe Doug's posts. I'm sure Doug has many positive things to say 
>about America, but this forum isn't exactly the best place to make 
>such views known.

I hope I have cleared things up....?

--Q