RoR: Forum

Oh boy, Knapp! That Raimondo-esque word "Quisling" (to describe the interim government) again. Now we can see what words really mean and who here is disingenuously calling himself a patriot (*cough* KNAPP *cough*)

"Quisling: A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country."
(From the American Heritage Dictionary...maybe that's my mistake, using the imperialistic dictionary of AMERICA. Egads!)

So, your assertion is that the interim government of Iraq was traitorous, and that the United States is the "enemy occupier"? Sounds like a razor's edge from treason, m'boy, to equate the United States with the Nazis and suggest that the interim government is traitorous. Regardless, it's Anti-American, anyway, so digest on that for a while.

Remember, words mean things. Who said that again?

Post 81

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 9:39am

Absolutely right, Steven. Words have meanings, and choices of words by an experienced writer are intended to convey clear connotations. Knapp describes U. S. soldiers who deposed a vile dictator, and are now fighting his remnant thugs and imported terrorists, as "a foreign occupying force"; he describes those Iraqis who are fighting and dying alongside U. S. soldiers to retake their nation from the thugs as "quislings" and "collaborators"; he consistently puts the term used to describe the newly organized Iraqi military forces trying to put down the Saddam loyalists and terrorists -- "security forces" -- in mocking quotation marks.

(Update: Meanwhile, Knapp also has words to describe the terrorists and deposed Ba'athist thugs who are busily using car bombs to deliberately target Iraqi civilians, and who are sawing off heads of those "collaborators." He calls them "the resistance" [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2004/10/just-what-is-goal-in-iraq.html ]. Doesn't one notice just a wee bit of rhetorical asymmetry here?)

Yet Mr. Knapp -- an anarchist [ http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/knapp/knapp1.html ], a Henry George sympathizer [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/03/fmnnclip-george-jeffersons-piece-of_11.html ] who declares he occupies the "left-libertarian" niche on Free Market News Network [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/03/notes-from-house-pinko.html ], a publicly-declared supporter of the U. S. Democratic Party [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/01/and-you-dont-have-to-be-rocket.html ], an endorser of its stridently liberal chairman, Howard Dean [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/01/you-dont-have-to-love-howard-dean.html ] and an "admirer of Michael Moore" [ http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/01/fistful-of-michael-moores-gonads.html ] -- takes great, huffy-puffy umbrage that anyone would dare question his sympathies.

Well, if anyone really wants the "context" he claims to be providing in his exercises in sophistry, one can find it provided on his blog. Here are just a few samples of the patriotic, all-American Mr. Knapp at his rhetorically most precise:

Game: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2004/12/contra-sharansky.html

Set: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/02/unreality-based-president.html

Match: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2004/11/email-rant-rape-of-fallujah.html

Now, folks, pop some popcorn, sit back and enjoy his new explanations of this anti-American ranting.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/06, 11:00am)

Post 82

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 9:51am

Quoth Steven Druckenmiller:

"Oh boy, Knapp! That Raimondo-esque word 'Quisling' (to describe the interim government) again."

"Raimondo-esque?"

The word "quisling" was coined circa 1940, before Raimondo was born.

Google lists 101,000 instances of the word "quisling" on the Internet. I'm not going to go through all 101,000 links, but I did go through the first 100 -- ten pages of search results ... and there was not a single association in any of those results between the use of the term "quisling" and the writings of Justin Raimondo.

I also directed Google to search for the term "quisling" on AntiWar.Com, the site with which Raimondo is most often associated. It turned up 91 instances. Only four or five of those instances were in Raimondo's articles ... and NONE of those instances referred to the "interim government" in Iraq, or for that matter to Iraq at all.

Words mean things. In general, "quisling" refers to domestic rulers who cooperate with/rule on behalf of foreign occupation forces; and in that respect, the "interim government" fully conforms to the term's specifications.

Moreover, whether or not the US can be considered analogous to Nazi Germany (I don't believe that such a comparison holds water on any general level), Iyad Allawi is the spittin' ideological image of Vidkun Quisling: A brutal, evil fascist empowered by, and acting on behalf of, an invader.

"Now we can see what words really mean and who here is disingenuously calling himself a patriot (*cough* KNAPP *cough*)"

When disputing someone's characterization of himself, it's usually worthwhile to first figure out if that person has actually characterized himself in the manner that you're disputing. Of course, given your obvious predilection for defining words by linking them to whatever random boogey-men pop up in your mind when you read them, it's probably too much to expect that you'd bother to check your facts.

Tom Knapp

Post 83

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 10:22am

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"[Thomas L. Knapp] takes great, huffy-puffy umbrage that anyone would dare question his sympathies."

What makes you think that I "take umbrage" at "questioning" of my "sympathies?" Question away. Assert what you wish. If you're incorrect, I'll correct you. No biggie.

Yes, I am an anarchist.

I'm not sure if I'd call myself a "Henry George sympathizer." I'm not so much supportive of George's (and Jefferson's, and Paine's, and Locke's, and Smith's) ideas on land as I am curious about the absence, so far as I can tell, of a dispositive response to those ideas.

Yes, I have decided that the potential for liberty currently resides on the political left, and in partisan politics with the Democratic Party -- and since Dean delivers the goods, I supported him for chair.

Yes, I admire Michael Moore's skills as a propagandist. He's damn good. As a matter of fact, if the pro-Iraq-war side had any propagandists as skilled as Moore, the war would have sold better.

Do you feel better and more warm and fuzzy about your moral superiority now? Slag away -- I don't mind. However, you might want to avoid the mistake of assuming that your claim to your moral superiority, or my moral inferiority, automatically translates into correctness where factual claims are concerned.

"sit back and enjoy his new explanations of this anti-American ranting."

Since there's no "anti-American" ranting to explain, no explanation is necessary.

The Bush administration has so far sacrificed more than 1,500 American lives on the altar of Kant's categorical imperative in Iraq.

The war doesn't serve America's interests, as Iraq was never a threat to the US.

The war doesn't serve the interests of Iraqis, unless one believes that another Ba'athist dictatorship or else a Shiite theocracy is inherently superior to the dictatorship it displaces.

The war, so far, has simply been a bloody act of sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. That "Objectivists" would countenance such a thing isn't just puzzling, it's sickening.

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 4/06, 10:24am)

Post 84

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:37pm

Thomas Knapp: "Do you feel better and more warm and fuzzy about your moral superiority now?"

Yes.

Barbara

Post 85

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 10:45pm

The beauty of being an anarchist is in not having any real responsibilities as a citizen, for an anarchist society doesn't work--it isn't real and won't be realized save as an unstable continuum between one government and another. One is automatically anti one's governments' wars since one doesn't recognize or acknowledge any legitimacy of that government. Not being an anarchist I ask myself what is the best way to fight the war on terrorism? In war commonly understood people die, including innocents. I always thought the war in Iraq was the war on terror wrongly fought. The jury is still out on that one. I had other ideas. I agreed with what we (through the U.S. government) did in Afghanistan where, yes, innocents died, and thus that is some of my responsibility. As a Vietnam veteran I saw combat giving me an even more direct kind of responsibility for such.

I wonder, by the way, why are despotic foreign governments so sacrosanct to anarchists, but not the American government? Is there a relationship between anarchism and communism that even many anarchists aren't aware of?

--Brant

Post 86

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 11:26pm

The claim is often made among Objectivists and other supporters of the Iraq War that opponents of the war, particularly anarchists, consider foreign despotisms blameless -- I believe "sacrosanct" was Brant's word -- while damning the United States.

I wish somebody would show me an example of this supposed fact. Personally I don't know any anarchists who regard the regime of Saddam Hussein or any other tinpot Third World "strongman" as blameless or sacrosanct. The anarchists I know don't support these despotisms in any sense. They regard them as loathsome and detestable. The anarchists I know (and I emphatically include myself among these people) are quite aware that the political situation in this country is much preferable to the political situation anywhere else in the world.

Why then do we reserve our venom for the U.S. government? Because the U.S. government goes abroad and murders innocents in our name and finances this murder with our money. The megalomaniac who "rules" North Korea doesn't finance his activities in my name or using my money. Saddam Hussein didn't either. But George W. Bush does.

Moreover, while I can be quite confident that publishing my low opinion of Saddam Hussein in an American periodical or on an American website will have no effect whatever on Saddam's regime, in principle at least, publicly expressing my disapproval of something the U.S. government is doing -- *that* actually has a chance of influencing or even helping to change official policy.

JR

Post 87

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:56am

For a long time, many of us have been outraged about the curious moral asymmetry of libertarian isolationists and anarchists, who single out the U. S. government for special vilification, but largely give totalitarian and genocidal foreign regimes a pass. For a very recent example on this site, click here: "As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden," declares libertarian anarchist Thomas Knapp.

For an equally long time, anarcho-libertarians have indignantly denied that they had any such special anti-U. S. bias, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But now this, from veteran anarcho-lib Jeff Riggenbach:

Why then do we reserve our venom for the U.S. government?

Well, folks, this is progress. After all, doctors tell us that before you can recover, you first must acknowledge that you have the disease.

I shall reserve comment on Mr. Riggenbach's rationale for his "blame America first" strategy for another occasion.

Post 88

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:10am

"I wonder, by the way, why are despotic foreign governments so sacrosanct to anarchists, but not the American government?"

I think it boils down to the concept of 'think globally, act locally' and that most anarchists we've read happen to be in America; they hate all government but are just more concerned with what is nearby than across the world.

Post 89

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:55am

Jeff, speaking anecdotally, I remember how happy Murray Rothbard was three decades ago when South Vietnam fell--just because a government had disappeared from the face of the earth, he said. Well, I doubt if he had been still alive he'd have celebrated the fall of the Iraqi government of S. H. I personally don't like much what the U.S. government is doing today, generally speaking. Disgusted. Too much crap and bullshit getting worse with no relief in sight. After 100 years of not minding our American business, especially abroad, we are now upset that others are not minding their business with respect to us.

--Brant

Post 90

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:40am

Brant says,

Jeff, speaking anecdotally, I remember how happy Murray Rothbard was three decades ago when South Vietnam fell--just because a government had disappeared from the face of the earth, he said.

I remember that, too, Brant. And the moral fraud of anarchist Rothbard's position was transparent: he and everyone else knew that the disappearance of the South Vietnamese regime meant its conquest and replacement by the North Vietnamese communist regime. That he knowingly celebrated and preferred the communization of Southeast Asia to the then-existing status quo speaks volumes about the real-world implications of his brand of anarchism.

That so many of his ideological heirs, in the Knapp-Riggenbach vein, now acknowledge targeting their "venom" (Riggenbach's word) at the U. S. government rather than the terrorists it is fighting, and declare our President as worse than the terrorist kingpin who knocked down the World Trade Center (Knapp's assertion), speaks volumes about the moral status of their own position, as well.

Libertarian isolationists often claim themselves to be heirs to the "Old Right" isolationists of the pre-WWII era. But the isolationists had an intellectually respectable position, and when the shooting actually started, almost all of those individuals ceased their opposition in order to stand behind American troops sent into battle. They were patriots who, when the chips were down, refused to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

That kind of patriotism, of course, is unknown to anarchists, who now openly acknowledge that they (a) single out the American military for their special "venom," and (b) regard what the American military is doing as worse than what al Qaeda is doing.

It is long past time to reject as utterly fraudulent any claims of Rothbard's heirs to being champions of morality or liberty. Within U. S. borders, they are the best friends that America's enemies could hope for.

Post 91

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:18am

Jeff, you wrote:

Personally I don't know any anarchists who regard the regime of Saddam Hussein or any other tinpot Third World "strongman" as blameless or sacrosanct.

I for one do not think many anarchists would regard dictatorships as sacrosanct. What I do believe is that they simply ignore the fact that without strong opposition, strongman goons will not mind their own business and will keep their guns and bombs aimed at other countries - and will use them if they can get away with it. The end result of leaving them alone is always being attacked by them.

The anarchists I know (and I emphatically include myself among these people) are quite aware that the political situation in this country is much preferable to the political situation anywhere else in the world.

Might be a good idea to ask why the USA is better. It is definitely NOT because of anarchism or non-iniation of force.

Then if you can correctly identify why the USA is better, it might be a better idea to do what you can to try to keep it that way.

Then, and only then, is it proper to call our leaders to task for abuses.

Political rights are derived from morality and ethics. Not the other way around.

Michael

Post 92

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:51am

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"That so many of his ideological heirs, in the Knapp-Riggenbach vein, now acknowledge targeting their 'venom' (Riggenbach's word) at the U. S. government rather than the terrorists it is fighting ..."

There's are two unexamined assumptions in the foregoing assertion:

1. That the US government is, in fact, fighting "the terrorists." That assumption doesn't stand up under close examination. After 9/11, the Bush administration placed a higher priority on replacing the government of Afghanistan than it did on liquidating al Qaeda, to the extent that US troops spent six weeks doing the former while the latter goal became less possible as al Qaeda moved its key people and assets out of the country. Following that, the Bush administration turned its attention to destroying al Qaeda's single most implacable foe in the Middle East (and no, I am not forgetting Israel), opening up a new recruitment and funding pool of 24 million to Osama bin Laden while tying down US troops which could otherwise have been used in the effort to liquidate al Qaeda.

Bush is objectively Osama bin Laden's closest ally -- if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might posit that that has something to do with their former business partnership, but such a hypothesis is not necessary to the argument, as the facts are clear. Bush has repeatedly and firmly declined to engage al Qaeda, and he has pursued policies in the Middle East that cannot be reasonably expected to have any effect other than to enhance al Qaeda's resource base and future prospects for success.

2. That one must either have venom for the US government or for its enemies. That assumption is plainly in error. It is entirely possible to have venom for both. I do ... and with the single likely exception of Doc Garcia, I suspect I've done more than anyone on this board to actually fight al Qaeda, including working to interdict their acquisition of US, Iraqi and Kuwaiti weapons along the Saudi/Kuwait border after the 1991 war.

"... and declare our President as worse than the terrorist kingpin who knocked down the World Trade Center (Knapp's assertion), speaks volumes about the moral status of their own position, as well."

I didn't say "worse." I said "morally inferior." And in a later post I clarified: Bush and bin Laden are both nutjobs and they're both murderers. However, Bush is a liar and a coward to boot. On the up side, Bush can presumably be dealt with via peaceful domestic political processes. Unfortunately,bin Laden can only be dealt with by military force.

"That kind of patriotism, of course, is unknown to anarchists, who now openly acknowledge that they (a) single out the American military for their special "venom," and (b) regard what the American military is doing as worse than what al Qaeda is doing."

Following your transitions from factual claim to untenable conclusion is an interesting game. I don't regard what the American military is doing as "worse" than what al Qaeda is doing. As a matter of fact, for the most part I consider it not only better, but on an entirely different plane of morality. I do not, however, regard every good action by the American military as exculpatory for Bush for the misdeeds he has put that military up to, any more than I regard the building of schools and hospitals by al Qaeda as exculpatory for Osama bin Laden.

Tom Knapp

Post 93

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:36am

Knapp (post 92) finds "two unexamined assumptions" in my post #90. The assumptions, says Knapp, are...

1. That the US government is, in fact, fighting "the terrorists." That assumption doesn't stand up under close examination.

Well, examine the evidence here. (The column to scroll and examine is the one called "Status.")

Seems to me that the U. S. has been plenty busy fighting the terrorists. But unlike Knapp, I don't put "the terrorists" in ironic quotation marks, by which he means to mock the very idea that they are, in fact, terrorists.

My other alleged assumption, according to Knapp, is...

2. That one must either have venom for the US government or for its enemies. That assumption is plainly in error. It is entirely possible to have venom for both. I do ...

But I wasn't discussing the logically possible alternatives; I was reporting the actual stated position of Jeff Riggenbach, who acknowledged his own bias in post #86:

Why then do we reserve our venom for the U.S. government?

[Edited addition]: Moreover, Knapp's claim about his own supposedly equal distaste for the U. S. government and its enemies is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. Consider the quotation he posted to start this thread. Common sense will tell any reader that its intended target is Bush, not bin Laden -- and not both "equally." After all, who doesn't already condemn and despise bin Laden? So the only reason to post this quotation is to advance the proposition that Bush is a moral monster in the same league as bin Laden.

"Unexamined assumptions"? But you see, I have examined them.

Finally, as to my paraphrasing of Knapp's position as saying that Bush is "worse than" bin Laden, Knapp offers this "rebuttal":

I didn't say "worse." I said "morally inferior."

I don't believe I need to comment further.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/02, 11:11am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/02, 11:13am)

Post 94

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:33pm

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"[U]nlike Knapp, I don't put 'the terrorists' in ironic quotation marks, by which he means to mock the very idea that they are, in fact, terrorists."

This is so obviously counter-factual that it's difficult to believe that you are merely mistaken rather than intentionally lying. Nonetheless, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The members and operatives of al Qaeda are, indeed, terrorists. The supporters of al Qaeda do, indeed, support terrorism. There has never been any question in my mind on this point, nor has there ever been any variation in my statements to that effect. If you didn't know that before, you do now.

Al Qaeda, however, while they are terrorists, are not "the terrorists." Terrorism is a tactic used by a number of groups, not all of which are groups that the US is either concerned with or even putatively fighting (and, for that matter, including some groups within the US government and with which the US government is allied -- an example of the former being the American trainers of El Salvador's death squads, and an example of the latter being Mujahadeen El Kalq).

Your statement about "fighting the terrorists" implied that the US government is at war on terrorism per se, when that is plainly incorrect. It is at war with a particular group of terrorists (al Qaeda) and some of that group's close allies (Abu Sayeff, Jemiah Islamiya, et al). It is not at war with the Basque separatists, the Irish Republicans, Shining Path, Aum Shirikinyu, the Kosovo Liberation Army, et al.

"the only reason to post this quotation is to advance the proposition that Bush is a moral monster in the same league as bin Laden."

Actually, I made my reason for posting the quotation quite clear: It looked like nothing so much as a quotation from the work of Ayn Rand, which it could not possibly be. I found that interesting.

Tom Knapp

Post 95

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 8:39am

Knapp, post 92:

I don't regard what the American military is doing as "worse" than what al Qaeda is doing. As a matter of fact, for the most part I consider it not only better, but on an entirely different plane of morality.

Here Knapp wants to pretend that his attacks are only against President Bush and the U. S. leadership, and not against the military.

That is pure sophistry.

1. Here, for example, Knapp compares our soldiers' actions to clean out that former viper nest of terrorist beheaders, Fallujah, to the genocidal actions of Nazi war criminals who said they were "just following orders" (note especially the sarcastic quotation marks he places around the word "our" in reference to American troops):

Yes, I know that some of the people in Fallujah are "bad guys." I consider it unfortunate that "our" troops have been put in the position of being "bad guys" too -- but "vee ver justtt followink orderrrz" hasn't cut any mustard since 1945. Fallujah goes into the books with Guernica and Grozny. You don't have to like it -- but it will remain a fact whether you like it or not.

2. Now here is how Knapp characterizes overall U. S. military policy in the Middle East:

The freedom the administration wants to offer the Middle East is the freedom to be shot at, bombed, kidnapped and murdered by Americans instead of Arabs.

And here, you recall, is how he characterizes the U. S. military's Commander in Chief, President Bush:

As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me. Bush wants to blow smoke up my ass and pretend he's trying to protect me, while in actuality he and his organization do the former and threaten to do the latter should I resist.... Some people who go to church -- bin Laden, for example -- are car-bombers. Other people who go to church -- Bush, for example -- have larger machinery at their disposal to do the same dirty work.

Okay, let's plod through this:

The Bush administration wants to shoot, bomb and "murder" people in the Middle East. President Bush, the military's Commander in Chief, is "the moral inferior of bin Laden"; "he and his organization" want to enslave Americans, and threaten to kill us should we resist. In fact, Bush is no better than a car-bomber like bin Laden, but has "larger machinery at [his] disposal to do the same dirty work."

Now what is that "larger machinery" if not the U. S. armed forces? Moreover, according to Knapp, "our" soldiers can't be morally excused from all this "murder" and "enslaving" and "dirty work": after all, they are in a volunteer military, and "'vee ver justtt followink orderrrz' hasn't cut any mustard since 1945."

The meaning and logic of Knapp's statements are abundantly clear, try as he might to muddle the implications. To him, U. S. soldiers, operating in a volunteer military, are willing accomplices and instruments of Bush's policies of "murder" and "foreign occupation" and enslavement; they can't deny personal moral responsibility for their actions, because they have all voluntarily put themselves at the "beck and call" of a lunatic.

In emphasizing his hatred of Bush, Knapp is simply trying to disguise the fact that he is also hostile to the American military, regarding it as an army of "occupation" and "murder." Being anti-military, you see, is a far less publicly palatable position.

But of course, how could an anarchist be otherwise?

I can, and do, honor Thomas Knapp for his service in the military during the first Gulf War. But I wonder what soldiers serving over there today would think of his efforts to besmirch them as hired murderers, following the orders of a lunatic?

Post 96

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 9:28am

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"Here Knapp wants to pretend that his attacks are only against President Bush and the U. S. leadership, and not against the military."

No. Here Knapp states, flatly and unequivocally, that his attacks are against President Bush and the US leadership (sic), and not against the military. You may "pretend" things. I don't.

"Knapp compares our soldiers' actions to clean out that former viper nest of terrorist beheaders, Fallujah, to the genocidal actions of Nazi war criminals who said they were "just following orders" (note especially the sarcastic quotation marks he places around the word "our" in reference to American troops)"

The "our" is not sarcastic. It's accurate. In theory, the mission of the armed forces of the United States is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. To the extent that they have been misdirected away from that legitimate mission and toward use as the personal hit force of George W. Bush, they are not "our" troops at this time.

Does the Rape of Fallujah substantially resemble Guernica and Grozny, as I stated? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, chances are that it was worse than Guernica.

The first military action in that battle was the closure of the city's main hospital in blatant violation of both US military law and international treaty.

The second military action was to cordon off the city and prevent the escape of refugees, even extending to the machine-gunning, from helicopter gunships, of people attempting to swim the river and escape the city, once again in blatant violation of US military law and international treaty.

The third military action was the systematic killing of all males in the city, armed or unarmed, who could be found, without attempt to discern whether they were combatants or non-combatants (and if you care to dispute me on this point, feel free -- I have friends who were there, and they were VERY clear on their rules of engagement). These rules of engagement, of course, were in blatant violation of US military law and international treaty.

I favor a general amnesty for enlisted troops and junior officers who made the best they could of a bad situation ... but for the leaders who ordered such savagery, they deserve to hang.

"Now here is how Knapp characterizes overall U. S. military policy in the Middle East:

"The freedom the administration wants to offer the Middle East is the freedom to be shot at, bombed, kidnapped and murdered by Americans instead of Arabs."

And that is absolutely, 100% accurate.

Tom Knapp

Post 97

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 4:22pm

Regarding Tom Knapp�s first, second and third military actions, I can only offer a solemn prayer that next time Bush will finally give orders that we get tough on the enemy.

Jon

Post 98

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 4:31pm

We have two parallel threads going on this issue; I've just posted my final reply to Knapp here, on the other one.

Post 99

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 5:09pm