|
|||||||||
Posted October 10, 2001
Aggression and Retaliation
It
was inevitable that Justin Raimondo would eventually
show his hand as to what response was indicated
by the unprecedented assault on American soil.
In his column of September 28 ["Kill'em
and Get Out"], he recommends a surgical
operation in line with Colin Powell. This recommendation
didn't come without the invocation of the nonaggression
principle so cherished by private property libertarians.
There is a fundamental flaw in Raimondo's reasoning,
though. The assumption is being made that the
assault on American soil was an "act of
aggression." And yet in his previous columns,
where he has provided historical context, we
are led to understand it was, after all, essentially
a war measure.
As he explained it, the U.S. government has
been, for quite some time, in a de facto state
of war in the Middle East, with particular focus
on Iraq, presently, but with other regions as
well. In this context, it is not at all clearly
established therefore that the 9/11 assault
was an act of aggression. If anything, it was
retaliation in kind for things the US had been
doing for years.
The libertarian so-called nonaggression principle
doesn't rule out retaliation in kind.
Justin Raimondo replies:
I don't understand what Alan Koontz is talking about. How is a "war measure" different from an "act of aggression"? This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Another such distinction is implied in the phrase "private property libertarians." Alan, there isn't any other kind.
Bill Kristol Is A Traitor
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of September 28, "Kill'em and Get Out":]
If you want to ask why Bill Kristol wants to wipe out Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab countries, you need to ask former US Ambassador Martin Indyk why this is true. Didn't Indyk give a speech many years ago about what he called "rogue states warfare"? In that speech he mentions the same countries as Kristol and why the US should wage war against all of them.
The common thread to both Kristol and Indyk is that they are both extremely pro-Israel, even to the detriment of the United States. Dual-loyalism is treason and this country had better start dealing with it for what it is. Bill Kristol is no neo-conservative. He is a traitor to our beloved United States and he should go live where his true loyalty lies, in Ariel The Butcher's backyard.
Hey Bill Kristol: the USA is the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be – take a hike, you phony!
Marines
God, has a hard-on for Marines. Because we kill, everything we see!
Post that on your website you unknowing fools. These fools are not interested in peace, and you are too stupid to see that.
'War'
We have listened for over two weeks to a great deal of rhetoric that we are "officially at war," that we should "make no mistake that this was an act of war," and we are now engaged in a "war on terrorism." Not having a firm foundation in law, I am curious to know if indeed we are actually and officially at "war."
Additionally, I would ask, if the answer is in the affirmative, are the perpetrators of these "acts of war" and others and sundry whom we capture and detain then considered in essence "prisoners of war," and thereby subject to the Geneva Convention requirements rather than being tried and sentenced as criminals? If this is an actual "war," then aren't they POWs both de facto and de jure?
Any
legal opinions?
Free-Floating Animus
So
long as the group identified by Pat Buchanan
as the "amen corner" retains its current
level of political power, American foreign policy
with regard to the Middle East will continue
to be "American" only in the sense
that we the American people are forced to finance
it and suffer the consequences of it.
By
the way, given that the amen corner would have
us believe that Muslim antipathy toward America
is motivated solely by a free-floating animus
wholly unrelated to our relationship with Israel,
I hereby challenge Podohertz, Perle, Kristol
or any of their ilk to provide the details surrounding
any Muslim terrorist attack against America
prior to 1948. I am being facetious, of course;
there weren't any such attacks (that I know
of) during such time period. Coincidence? I
think not.
~ Fred Godinez
Tears of Rage
I
have stumbled across your website by sheer accident
and was horrified at what was unveiled before
me. I must admit that I have not read the entire
content of your site as the tears of rage in
my eyes were getting far to much for me to handle....
Point 1
"Anytime
someone accuses me of 'taking my freedoms for
granted,' 'giving in,' 'treason,' etc., I simply
remember George Washington's advice: Avoid foreign
entanglements. ...Was not he a proud patriot?"
Answer: The mass murder of over 5000 innocent people on home soil is not foreign entanglement.
Point 2
"A quick note to the warmongers among you: If you want to wave the flag, do so by allying yourself to its original message: the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness under a Constitutional Republic. If you want me to celebrate the glory of the empire, however, count me out."
Answer: So going to work on a normal working day to provide an income for your family doesn't come under the banner "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," I think you will find it does, very clearly. Count me in!
Point 3
"The truly frightening thing about Blair is not what he stands for. It is not even his total lust for power. What is frightening about him is that he is insane. And he's in charge of the asylum."
Answer: Are writers on your site saying that people of the United Kingdom are "nutters" and need to be in an asylum? – because that is how it appears.
Point 4
"Despite some absurdly bellicose rhetoric and impossible goals – I don't know many people who think terrorism and evil can be wiped out once and for all – "
Answer: So we should sit back and take it without trying? How defeatist!
I could go on, but to be honest I have more important things to worry about, like are my wife and child safe from terrorist attacks, and will my friends in the UK army come home safely.
All the quotes I have used have been taken from your site, all of which I find offensive. Not only that, I am employed as a webdesigner for a large UK company, and find your site of very poor quality, and in very poor taste, and totally one-sided.
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Your Points 1 and 2 are quotes from letters to the editor, published in "Backtalk." Such letters reflect the opinions of the letter-writers (who may wish to reply to your criticisms).
Under "Point 3" you've quoted Emmanuel Goldstein's column of October 8, "Tony Blair: The Mad Bomber of Kabul." Mr. Goldstein is English and patriotic, so the "asylum" he's referring to is probably the government, rather than the nation (this is a distinction that you will often encounter among libertarians).
The final quote is actually a sentence fragment from Alan Bock's column of October 3, "Anti-Terrorism for the Long Haul." The sentence ends: " – US leaders have so far moved with a certain amount of deftness in the wake of the September 11 atrocities." Mr. Bock is advocating little more than the Powell Doctrine – set reasonable goals and an exit strategy before you start killing people.
As for one-sidedness, this site was not established to debate the pros and cons of military violence.