Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald called Iraq war protestors hardcore communists and truly odious. (340 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well Timaeus, I may be wrong, but it looks to me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, SpaceCityDemocrat

    as though it was GG himself that conflated the protestors with opposition to the Iraq War. I don't think you can hold the diarist responsible for that.

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:28:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Where did he do that? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, kharma, Johnny Q

      I don't see anything in this article that equates these protesters with opposition to the Iraq war.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my 2:40 post right below. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WB Reeves
      •  Timaeus reproduced the relevant passage (0+ / 0-)

        below,

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't get it ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, corvo

          How does

          This has nothing to do with opposition to the war in Iraq or specific free trade agreements. Those are thinly disguised pretexts.
          amount to equating these protesters to opposition to the Iraq war? It reads to me like the exact opposite.

          Are you saying that he was denying the existence of any sincere opposition to the war? I don't find that credible.

          "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

          by jrooth on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:41:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point is that if the protests had nothing to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, SpaceCityDemocrat

            do with the Iraq war, GG wouldn't have had any need to deny them legitimacy as such.

            You'll note that he does this in the same sentence where he denies their legitimacy as protests against free trade agreements as well. GG obviously thought that these protests were articulating both positions or he wouldn't have denounced them in tandem as "thinly disguised pretexts." Note his use of the plural "pretexts", indicating that he attributed both to the protestors.

            If, in fact, the protestors were not anti-war, then GG himself seems to have been confused about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have denounced them for using the issue as a pretext. Consequently, any confusion on this point is of GG's making, not the diarist's.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:09:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But he quite plainly says (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo, greenbastard

              that in fact, the protestors were not anti-war. That's what makes them invoking the war (and free trade agreements) a "pretext."

              I don't see that he's confused. He may or may not be right, but his clear stated position is that these "odious" protesters are not really concerned about the war at all. Given that, the diarist's claim that what he found "odious" about them was their opposition to the war is clearly wrong.

              "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

              by jrooth on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:19:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  At the same time that he says that they weren't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SpaceCityDemocrat

                anti free trade?

                Neither of these accusations makes sense if the protestors weren't actually presenting themselves as both anti-war and anti-free trade, irrespective of whether GG thought them sincere.

                I'm afraid this is just factually inaccurate:

                ... his clear stated position is that these "odious" protesters are not really concerned about the war at all. Given that, the diarist's claim that what he found "odious" about them was their opposition to the war is clearly wrong.
                What diarist asserted is that GG
                "called Iraq war protestors hardcore communists and truly odious."
                That is a factual statement. GG himself identified these groups as protesting the war. He did, in fact, describe them as Communists and odious. That he also attacked the sincerity of their opposition to the war doesn't alter that. Nor does the fact that he attacked their sincerity "prove" them insincere.

                I do think that GG"s comment is a little incoherent on this point, since he does seem to argue that public opposition to the Iraq war isn't really about the war unless he approves of the reasons for the opposition.

                That's not something GG is entitled to do and no one is obliged accept his judgement. Particularly since this would require denouncing any individual or group as insincere whose opposition to the war was based on a larger political perspective at odds with what GG considers to be legitimate. In this specific instance, that would be anyone who's opposition stemmed from an anti-Capitalist perspective.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 02:21:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  You're not without a point. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, AoT, WB Reeves, Choco8, duhban

      I just went back and reread the Greenwald piece.  He mentions Iraq once:

      These are hard-core Communists. Fidel Castro is one of their heroes. This has nothing to do with opposition to the war in Iraq or specific free trade agreements. Those are thinly disguised pretexts. These demonstrators hate the United States because they are genuinely opposed to economic freedom and individual liberty, and they seek to impose the collectivist authoritarianism of Fidel Castro onto the entire Latin American continent. It really is that simple.
      One can parse that many ways, but it seems to me he is denying that these were really Iraq war protestors.  I guess you could say he is calling them ostensible Iraq war protestors.

      The piece uses the term "peace protestors" in the title and at one point uses the expression "anti-war."

      In any event, I disapprove of this diary's murky hatchet job nine years later.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site