16 May 2013

Glenn Greenwald or the douchebag's lines of defense

G.K. Chesterton, in The Innocence of Father Brown, says:
Where does a wise man hide a leaf? In the forest. But what does he do if there is no forest? He grows a forest to hide it in.
In a certain way, these words are applicable to the body of work created so far by Glenn Greenwald, a valuable gift from one bastion of progressive thought (Salon.com) to another one (The Guardian).

Aside of his inordinate fervor to be heard and to lead the progressive masses somewhere, Greenwald has hardly an original thought or original idea to his name. Most of his "creative" activities are dedicated to hiding this sorry circumstance, and even in this he is not very successful. Here comes an example: on April 20, only five days after the Boston Marathon bombing, Ali Abunimah* publishes an article in the infamous Electronic Intifada (no link, as per our custom), titled "Obama’s rush to judgment: Was the Boston bombing really a “terrorist” act?". In this article, Mr Abunimah says:
There can be no doubt that the Boston Marathon bombing was a murderous act, but does it –– based on what is known –– fit the US government’s own definitions of “terrorism”?

It is important to recall that other, far more lethal recent events, including the mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and the school massacre at Sandy Hook, Connecticut have not been termed “terrorism,” nor their perpetrators labeled “terrorist” by the government. Why?
Being an attentive colleague of Ali Abunimah (if the assorted bunch of CiF contributors could be called "colleagues"), in no more than two days, on April 22, Greenwald fires off a broadside of his own, titled Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine? Well, you might say, great minds think alike. Even to the tune of writing in that April 22 opus the following:
But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine.
You may have noticed the creative element in that last quote: Greenwald added Tucson and Columbine to the Abunimah's list (I bet one of the two is less of an ardent Michael Moore's fan). Anyway, this is a good example of that Chesterton's leaf, and Greenwald does his best in this article to hide it in a forest of verbosity he grows, that will literally leave you buried in similar decaying leaves. Like his (and Abunimah's too, accidentally) reference to the point made by Alan Dershowitz and totally misinterpreted by both thinkers, like the quotation marks used for the word 'terrorism', like the vague and vacuous nods at the definition of terrorism (why the dictionary one is insufficient for the likes of Greenwald and Abunimah is known only too well). Etc.

But, thankfully, the time passes. Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the little brother, started to sing in jail, and one of the first things he blurted out was the motive. Boston Marathon bombing was clearly understood to be another terrorist act. And Mr Greenwald, like a cat that has done that thing cats prefer to do in sandboxes, applied a similar cover-up technique (I mean feverish use of hind legs, throwing sand over the proceeds). The result, which indeed reminds of feline excrement thinly covered by sand, is his article of April 25: The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over. Like a wounded but brave cat, Greenwald retreats fighting. The fight starts with the already familiar quotation marks around "terrorism" and continues with the picture heading the article:

A banner reading 'United We Stand For Peace on Earth' outside the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
One doesn't have to be an imam to understand the meaning of that picture, does one? I say it's a good preemptive measure, if a reader had a tactless remark or two about RoP in mind.

The fighting retreat continues to the next defensive line:
News reports purporting to describe what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told US interrogators should, for several reasons, be taken with a huge grain of salt. The sources for this information are anonymous, they work for the US government, the statements were obtained with no lawyer present and no Miranda warnings given, and Tsarnaev is "grievously wounded", presumably quite medicated, and barely able to speak.
Uhu... indeed, but the bird sings freely with Miranda warnings duly given, so this line is obviously too weak...

By now even Glenn Greenwald must have realized that his position is wide open to any shooter and too vulnerable to defend at this point, so he graciously gives it up:
Those caveats to the side, the reports about what motivated the Boston suspects are entirely unsurprising and, by now, quite familiar...
As you can see, he gives this line of defense up only to come out swinging. And here I have to grant him a measure of creativity, because his logic is (kind of) original. According to Greenwald, various terrorists are referring to the same, more or less, root causes that brought them to try to kill as many people as possible. The causes are (quoted): killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, United States presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, feelings about what the United States was doing in Afghanistan. And the aggrieved people quoted above are:
  • Attempted "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
  • Attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad
  • Attempted NYC subway bomber Najibullah Zazi
  • Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan
This is a fairly representative group of aggrieved Muslim population, I would say. Of course, the list could be made longer, but Greenwald decided to turn to higher placed sources of grievances, quoting the late Hellfirerized imam Anwar al-Awlaki and even the ultimate expert on grievances, Osama bin Laden.

What can I say? Imagine interviewing Pol Pot and six (or ten) of his henchmen on reasons for murdering people who think differently. Or interviewing several Nazis on extermination of "untermenschen". If you are ready to accept any thesis based on it being supported by a group of people (even of the kind mentioned above), you may remain a faithful reader of that character. Especially since he knows to conclude this part of his article by the ominous:
It should go without saying that the issue here is causation, not justification or even fault.
The article in question could be scrolled down for another meter (3 ft approx.) and commented upon. But by now it should go without saying that The Guardian got itself a bargain: a totally amoral, un-original and quite stupid sleazoid, who is blending in famously with the CiF crowd.

Still, one could enjoy saying it...


(*) Ali Abunimah: this Jew-hater one-stater deserves some attention too. Check the appendix to this post to learn more about this one.

More on the subject by Marcus Brutus at Harry’s Place.

17 comments:

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Glenn Greenwald is a textbook example of the so called narcissistic personality disorder. A pity that old Siegmund is dead already, he could have written his "On narcissism" simply reading the Guardian CIF.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

A second article I wrote about GG's take on Boston.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/glenn-greenwalds-justification-for-the-boston-bombings/

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Well, President Choom is doing all he can to apologize, what he isn't playing golf, taking vacations. throwing celebrity parties, and instigating IRS audits.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I am not a psychologist, but I would say that narcissism is not his only problem.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

He he. Be careful. You don't want to see some G-men running around your property with rulers and "adjusting" your property tax...

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I guess you don't like this response, Simon.

Too bad, esp. since you can't offer some details of your displeasure to help us all improve our writing to please you.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

nobody asked! well, the article left me with a lot of questions. some include: so asking the same question and/or having the same view as someone else constitutes plagiarism and/or unoriginality these days? What of those who only read Glenn's column and no other Comment is Free writers, like myself, who would not have seen the other article? why rely on the outmoded "look in the dictionary" argument? what misinterpretation concerning Dershowitz is the author referring to? "Boston Marathon bombing was clearly understood to be another terrorist act" by whom exactly? Does the author fail to realize that the point of Glenn's article was to criticize jumping to conclusions, not to assert that the bombing "wasn't terrorism" only to have to "cover it up like cat poop" (sick burn btw) in what the author supposes is rabid backpeddling and embarrassment with no actual argument to support such an assumption? Is "This is a fairly representative group of aggrieved Muslim population, I would say." being sarcastic? Was the accusation of Greenwald being "a totally amoral, un-original and quite stupid sleazoid" supposed to convince anyone of anything, or simply serve as masturbation material?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

you forgot prosecuting bradley manning and terrorizing (see what I did) journalists and info sources oh wait I forgot that self-identified liberals are too embarrassed that they voted for Obama to pay attention to that stuff and self-identified conservatives don't actually care about liberty and freedom and small govt

SnoopyTheGoon said...

brilliant analysis, I just wanted to point out the small typo where "you don't offer any details of your displeasure to help [Glenn] improve [his personality disorders] to please you"

SnoopyTheGoon said...

hold on, it seems that your "To anti-Zionists" tab may in fact diagnose me with a "fragile psyche"; if that is a central premise we are working from (and it just might be, being that my grandfather survived the German holocaust in hiding, and that statistically, I am not sympathetic to those calling themselves "Zionists" on the issues that drive them to call themselves such), I am literally deemed a less capable human being in-general as part of the agreement to my participation on this website. Unfortunately, that is a setup for discourse that I do not believe is worth my time.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Thanks, Simon, for answering. To start with, I have to say that you have avoided the main premise of that post, preferring to concentrate on technicalities. To avoid another question: look at the part that starts with words "And here I have to grant him a measure of creativity..."

Now we can go to your other remarks:

- plagiarism and/or unoriginality are two different things. Have you seen the word "plagiarism" in the post in question? I guess not.

- "What of those who only read Glenn's column and no other Comment is Free writers, like myself, who would not have seen the other article?" There are links in the post and in the original Greenwald's article. You can't expect a post, limited to a certain size, compete sizewise with Greenwald's opus.

- what misinterpretation concerning Dershowitz is the author referring to? The point Dershowitz was making was one of abusing person's freedom protected by constitution and laws of the land. Dershowitz in no way referred to the terrorist act as something else - unlike Abunimah and Greenwald.

- '"Boston Marathon bombing was clearly understood to be another terrorist act" by whom exactly?' Hm... judging by the question itself, not by you, Simon.

- "in what the author supposes is rabid backpeddling and embarrassment with no actual argument to support such an assumption?" The author has shown (well, tried to) demonstrate about three or for stages of backpedaling, not using the word "rabid" by the way. Too bad, it looks like author didn't succeed with you, Simon.

- "Is "This is a fairly representative group of aggrieved Muslim population, I would say." being sarcastic?" A bit difficult to understand your point due to the comma kind of interfering with what you were trying to state. Anyway, yes, it's supposed to be sarcastic. Apologies to the (non-paying) readership if failed.


- "Was the accusation of Greenwald being "a totally amoral, un-original and quite stupid sleazoid" supposed to convince anyone of anything, or simply serve as masturbation material?" Here I just have to answer with a question: Simon, does that quote in any way excite you? How? Details, please. You see, the mere thought about the text in question potentially serving as masturbation material didn't start crossing our collective hive mind. We, possibly, didn't even dream about the possibilities...

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I hope you understand, Simon, that you are addressing a commenter to the article, which makes your text a bit silly. Anyway, let's wait for Peter, if he happens by, to respond.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

- Why, Simon, the fact that your granddad survived the "German" Holocaust, should make your psyche fragile? (In other words, cut the crap on the subject, please, you are reaching here.)


- "that statistically, I am not sympathetic to those calling themselves "Zionists" on the issues that drive them to call themselves such" You are "statistically not sympathetic"? What does that mean? That you are not sympathetic to Zionists is your perfect right. Besides, I have guessed that much without your need to state it, Simon.

- "I am literally deemed a less capable human being in-general as part of the agreement to my participation on this website." What?

- "Unfortunately, that is a setup for discourse that I do not believe is worth my time." Up to you.

- "So either abandon even thinking about me, change the premises laid out by the tab, or explain why I don't qualify as an "SS Jew"; those are the only choices that I can discern for you, really." Muddy thinking, Simon: why should we (or anyone else) care whether you are or aren't an SS Jew? Why the coices you can discern are so limited? I can offer another two or three without hesitating...

- "My grandfather certainly had a fragile psyche..." and what does it have to do with you, me, us and the current price of platinum on the market? Why should we try to characterize your granddad, Z'L? Speak for yourslef, Simon, speak for yourself...

SnoopyTheGoon said...

- read your "To anti-Zionists" tab; the SS Jews section accuses people of that exact affliction. Also: there have been more than one holocaust of people, I was just being specific; is that a problem?

- statistically, as in there is a high probability that I will end up agreeing with what self-identified "Zionists" have to say on the issue

- Again, the "To anti-Zionists" addresses anyone coming to the website, and if I fall under that category according to you (or any other writer her, maybe) I am the victim of a whole slew of character flaws and afflictions



- see above; it seems whoever wrote that passage cares quite a lot about Jewish people who disagree with Zionists. Maybe you aren't familiar with that page on this website..

SnoopyTheGoon said...

"Hm... judging by the question itself, not by you, Simon." I feel this characterization again to be missing Glenn's point: that the word "terrorism" is _useless_ in my and Glenn's opinion(s).


I don't really get why those weren't sufficient citations by Glenn of examples of motivations of violent extremist people widely understood to be "terrorists". Hence the original "weak" charge


sorry, I meant _intellectual_ masturbation material; I guess you haven't come in contact with any of it recently, being a blog largely covering the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and all

SnoopyTheGoon said...

It look like the "To anti-Zionist" rubbed you the wrong way and that you took it personally, Simon. You are right, I don't remember it by heart, for two reasons: my memory is faulty and I didn't write it - although I am in total agreement with the contents.

But again - relax: it is as relevant to you as you make it.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The word "terrorism" has a perfect dictionary definition. In my experience, people who have a problem with this dictionary definition have an agenda. Just like people who disagree with the dictionary definition of "antisemitism" - if you know what I am talking about.

As for why you don't get the insufficiency: from a certain angle - like the need to understand where Mr Greenwald is coming from - his citations are rather more than sufficient. But that's all they are good for, and I gave a few other examples, frivolous as they may appear.

Oh, the intellectual masturbation. I see. Or, rather, I don't. Here in our boonies we, the unwashed Zionists, are not into intellectual self-pleasuring, leaving it to writers and readers of Salon.com, Guardian and the likes. We here are into real thing, you know...