Skip to main content

View Diary: Really?? Over a Meaningless Committee of Insane Truthers? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That was Greenwald being Greenwald. (14+ / 0-)

    He really doesn't know any better than this.  Or, rather, he doesn't care to be better than this.  He borderline endorsed Anwar Al Awlaki's political message in one interview.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:26:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  recced a million times if I could (5+ / 0-)
    •  What does “borderline endorsed” mean? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seamus D

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

      by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:47:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Imagine if Redstate wrote the following (7+ / 0-)

        about the people who advocate shooting abortion doctors:

        So, for a long time he was viewed as this, sort of, moderate figure. He became increasingly radicalized, like a lot of people have, over the last decade, as the abortionists  have continued to slaughter the unborn in multiple countries around the world, and he definitely became much more hostile in his sermons to the abortionists, and began arguing that it wasn’t just the duty but the right of Christians to not just watch the unborn be passive receivers of violence by the abortionists, but also to begin to attack the abortionists back as a means of deterring further violence. And so, he definitely became a great concern to the abortionists because he was so effective in communicating these ideas in English to large parts of the English speaking Christian world. And, of course, expressing those ideas that the abortionists are engaged in aggression against the unborn and the Christian world and that Christians have the right or even the duty to fight back rather than watch the unborn getting passively slaughtered, whether you agree with those ideas are not, or think they’re horrible ideas, they’re obviously rights you have to express under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        Greenwald's actual quote:

        GLENN GREENWALD:  So, for a long time he was viewed as this, sort of, moderate figure. He became increasingly radicalized, like a lot of people have, over the last decade, as the United States has continued to slaughter Muslim men, women and children in multiple countries around the world, and he definitely became much more hostile in his sermons to the United States, and began arguing that it wasn’t just the duty but the right of Muslims to not just be passive receivers of violence by the U.S., but also to begin to attack the United States back as a means of deterring further violence. And so, he definitely became a great concern to the U.S. because he was so effective in communicating these ideas in English to large parts of the English speaking Muslim world. And, of course, expressing those ideas that the United States is engaged in aggression against the Muslim world and that Muslims have the right or even the duty to fight back rather than getting passively slaughtered, whether you agree with those ideas are not, or think they’re horrible ideas, they’re obviously rights you have to express under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:56:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, I call bullshit. (7+ / 0-)

          The one claim that Greenwald phrases as a fact and not as Awlaki's opinion is that “the United States has continued to slaughter Muslim men, women, and children in multiple countries around the world,” and at most he's guilty of using a loaded word — we do kill an awful lot of Muslims, both guilty and otherwise.

          And if you think that his saying that Awlaki has the right to express those ideas is tantamount to an endorsement (“borderline” or otherwise), you must have a hard time understanding what the ACLU does.

          Advocating that Muslims engage in violence against the West is Constitutionally-protected free speech, period. The controlling Supreme Court decision is Brandenburg v. Ohio (h/t the late Ben Masel). I say this as someone who doesn't advocate any violence. Do you see the difference?

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

          by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:06:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Allow me to highlight the implicit (11+ / 0-)

            endorsement, as expressed through Greenwald's typical sneering sarcasm:

            GLENN GREENWALD:  So, for a long time he was viewed as this, sort of, moderate figure. He became increasingly radicalized, like a lot of people have, over the last decade, as the United States has continued to slaughter Muslim men, women and children in multiple countries around the world, and he definitely became much more hostile in his sermons to the United States, and began arguing that it wasn’t just the duty but the right of Muslims to not just be passive receivers of violence by the U.S., but also to begin to attack the United States back as a means of deterring further violence. And so, he definitely became a great concern to the U.S. because he was so effective in communicating these ideas in English to large parts of the English speaking Muslim world. And, of course, expressing those ideas that the United States is engaged in aggression against the Muslim world and that Muslims have the right or even the duty to fight back rather than getting passively slaughtered, whether you agree with those ideas are not, or think they’re horrible ideas, they’re obviously rights you have to express under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

            You see, in Greenwald's world, Al Awlaki was merely calling for Muslims to exercise their right to defend themselves against the Imperialist West instead of being punching bags.

            In reality, of course, Al Awlaki was encouraging the murder of any American man, woman, or child that Muslims could get their hands on.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:11:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're demanding that he editorialize (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q, Seamus D

              in describing what Awlaki preaches?

              He was describing Awlaki's message, not critiquing it. And even if he had used the phrasing you want, it's still protected speech.

              Formerly known as Jyrinx.

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

              by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:19:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He was misrepresenting Al Awlaki's speech (8+ / 0-)

                and putting an egregiously positive spin on it.

                Al Awlaki endorsed the murder of Americans wherever they were found.

                Greenwald made it sound like he was advocating that they act like George Washington.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:21:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, that's how he advocated they fight back. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, Seamus D, protectspice

                  Which does not change the fact that Awlaki's preaching cast Muslims as the victims who should no longer take it lying down.

                  And which, once again, does not change whether Greenwald's point was correct, that this was all protected speech.

                  Finally, wasn't this all supposed to be about how Greenwald was “borderline endorsing” Anwar al-Awlaki's message? Since when does failing to couch what someone says in the most negative light possible constitute an endorsement?

                  Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                  “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                  by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:34:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He put a dishonestly positive spin on it (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fizziks, tomjones, TFinSF, Matt Z, gramofsam1

                    and portrayed it as something inherently reasonable and unobjectionable.

                    Here's what Greenwald's Muslim George Washington had to say about those who wrote offensive cartoons:

                    "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved," writes Awlaki, 39, a Las Cruces, N.M.-born American citizen.

                    "A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air."

                    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/...

                    Sorry, but Greenwald's implicity and grotesque sympathy is palpable in his commentary.  He thinks Al Awlaki was a dissident who was assassinated for speaking out against imperialism.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:41:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If that's what you're determined to see, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Seamus D

                      I guess you'll always find a way to see it.

                      Personally, I'd say that seeing Greenwald say that Awlaki cast himself as George Washington and concluding that Greenwald things Awlaki is the Muslim George Washington is a bit of a stretch.

                      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

                      by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:46:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  (Also, if RedState posted your example, (0+ / 0-)

          they would also be correct. Advocating in general that abortionists be murdered is protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio.)

          Formerly known as Jyrinx.

          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

          by Code Monkey on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 02:15:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site