Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp

92p

1,334 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 0 replies · -10 points

Jeff,

Nice rant. You're part of the problem.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 3 replies · +2 points

Um ... so? Why in the world would you think that I agree with much, if anything, that McCain says? Not only is he certifiably insane, but I'm neither a Republican nor a past or present McCain supporter.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 6 replies · +1 points

It's a good thing you're not betting with real money, or I'd be buying myself something nice with my winnings right now.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 11 replies · +1 points

Israel claims to be "the Jewish state" and to represent all Jews.

Many Jews have nothing to do with Israel and deny that it represents them. And many non-Jews support Israel as well.

Yes, I realize that the US government (not "America") deals collectively with Muslims. I oppose that, too.

Your collectivism is symptomatic of the same problem you're complaining about.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 6 replies · -11 points

Well, you're free to make ethnic collectivist presumptions all you like, but ethnic collectivist presumptions are prima facie both stupid and evil.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 13 replies · -4 points

By whose own standards? I know lots of Jews with lots of opinions. None of them are responsible for the "standards" of others, nor deserving of a "backlash" for the actions of others.

229 weeks ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - The Mossad Caucus Exposed · 28 replies · -10 points

Well, yes, presumably Jews who were victimized because of the actions of other Jews with whom they were not associated would indeed regard such victimization as victimization. Is there some reason they shouldn't?

230 weeks ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Russia Confirms Intel ... · 0 replies · 0 points

Jeff, I wouldn't say that you got it wrong so much as that the picture is incomplete. Yes, many of the mujahadeen were "foreign fighters." Just as many of the Talib were Pakistani and had probably been mujahadeen "foreign fighters" themselves.

Just as an example, look at it from the other side. People often say, with justice, that the CIA "financed al Qaeda" during the Afghan fight against the Russians. But the organization known as "al Qaeda" was formed some time in the last months of, or after the end of, that fight. So did the US "finance al Qaeda" when they gave money and arms to bin Laden's fighters before that point? Technically, no. Actually, yes. Just as the Russians may not have been fighting an organization known as "the Taliban" in the 1980s, but they were definitely fighting a number of the same people.

230 weeks ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Russia Confirms Intel ... · 2 replies · 0 points

True.

But if I wanted to defend the sentence you're responding to, I'd say that a significant faction among those mujahadeen who fought the Russians in the 1980s were the same people as the Taliban, even though they didn't come up with the label until later.

232 weeks ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Kerry: US Not Seeking ... · 0 replies · +6 points

"The nearest accessible port from which to supply its forces in Syria would then be ... Murmansk!"

Wrong. Iran and Iraq both clearly support Assad. In the event that Turkey closed the strait, Putin would just run aid through Olya and across the Caspian for ground transport to the theater of operations.