Re: Re: RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
At 17/05/02 00:28 -0400, you wrote: Where the fuck did this come from? And why is it dated Nov 24 2002? Doug The letter from Mark Jones quoted by Max was originally sent on Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:04:31 + Although Max sent a number of posts on this thread on 26 Nov I can find no record of this post then, nor any post by him dated 24 November. Max clearly has a problem with his date line now as the recent post comes up also on my email list as 24 Nov 200*2* However on the web page it is posted as 17 May 2002 02:43 UTC Virus? Serendipity? Political Freudian slip? Gremlin's human or otherwise? I am sure Michael will want this thread closed for content, as he did in November, but perhaps Max can clarify where the technical problem is. Chris Burford
RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
MJ: The truthabout Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which mbs: There is no evidence that 'bombing towns and cities', random and/or mass slaughter, or 'destruction of whatever . . . ' are policies of the USG, nor that they have been carried out. This is simple hysteria for the consumption of one-note anti-imperialists. One could imagine cogent critiques of the U.S. campaign, but not any beginning as above. One could even connect the Russian campaign to U.S. machinations, thanks to Zbig's zbig mouth. Why engage in this sort of b.s.? MJ: for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years. The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of US bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc, under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support mbs: there were more indications (false, as it turned out) of impending genocide in Kosova than thus far in Afgh. MB: this ongoing genocide. He is a 'voter for war credits', a person who has surely lost any shred of credibility as a spokesman of the left. You cannot be of the left while supporting US genocide in Afghanistan. Now, weasel words about supporting this or that bit of a policy can not help him slide out his moral complicity in the US genocidal assault on Afghanistan, and no self-serving caveats about being against bombing but in favour of oher kinds of administering death should blind us to the truth of his politics: it is a cowardice and an instinct for personal survival, nothing more, that motivates it. mbs: how DH's article advances his 'personal survival' is beyond me. The way to do that would be to follow Hitchens. Unless one reasons that supporting a campaign against terrorism might mitigate against further attacks on NYC that threaten DH directly. I guess this is what Huey Newton meant by revolutionary suicide. MJ: When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise. Mark Jones mbs: one might be tempted to invoke the WWII analogy if one hadn't spent some time here on PEN-L and learned that the justice of WWII is a controversial matter. So let us invoke the October revolution and ask whether it is possible that innocents were not harmed, and whether in light of that, the revolution was rendered invalid. If not, then we have a kind of selective pacifism at work here (not a new thing, BTW). No violence by the U.S. state can be justified, and any violence by anything, and I do mean 'thing,' against the U.S. state is properly met, for all practical purposes, with indifference.
Re: Re: RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
I wrote to Max an hour ago trying to find out the origin of this. Mark has not been here for some time. On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:28:18AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: MJ: The truthabout Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which mbs: There is no evidence that 'bombing towns and cities', random and/or mass slaughter, or 'destruction of whatever . . . ' are policies of the USG, nor that they have been carried out. This is simple hysteria for the consumption of one-note anti-imperialists. One could imagine cogent critiques of the U.S. campaign, but not any beginning as above. One could even connect the Russian campaign to U.S. machinations, thanks to Zbig's zbig mouth. Why engage in this sort of b.s.? Where the fuck did this come from? And why is it dated Nov 24 2002? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise. Oh, he's worse than that. He's a running dog of the imperialist bourgeoisie, a flak for genocide; he has volunteered to personally eviscerate Afghan babies with his teeth, provided that they can be shipped to NYC. He is the personaification of evil, a renagade, a traitor, and enemy of the people. He throws Marx in the face of the people like ground glass, and should be shot like a mad dog! Vyshinsky _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
Mark in the apoplectic mode contends: The truthabout Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years. The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of US bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc, under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support this ongoing genocide. --Wierd, on other lists I've not seen any evidence of this. He's challenged the likes of Leo Casey on LBO and Soc. Register List, disagreed with Max Sawicky on the LBO list on the current bombing campaign. Any evidence that Doug supports the current bombing campaign or is this just one more of a series of smears? Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
Re: Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
Doug went into more detail in LBO, but Stephen, you should not pile onto the flames by attacking Mark. On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 07:12:22AM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote: --Wierd, on other lists I've not seen any evidence of this. He's challenged the likes of Leo Casey on LBO and Soc. Register List, disagreed with Max Sawicky on the LBO list on the current bombing campaign. Any evidence that Doug supports the current bombing campaign or is this just one more of a series of smears? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
