Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Glenn Greenwald Defines Terrorism
Greenwald seems to be saying that killing Iranian nuclear scientists is exactly as bad as blowing up pizzerias with Israel teenagers, slaughtering Christians in Iraqi or Pakistani churches, exploding cars in markets full of Muslims, mowing down passengers in Indian British or Spanish train stations, or destroying night clubs full of Australian tourists. Not to mention toppling towers full of ordinary New Yorkers. He's an odd fellow, is Greenwald, but he has a devoted audience; I don't think there's any other way to read this missive of his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I looked up the stuff - it is outside my intellectual powers but the man has 418 comments -
even on really thriving comment threads where a bunch of people were heavily engaged in controlling a troll I have never seen such a number.
One needs to give them an e-mail address in order to be able to comment - I wonder if he censors his comments, if yes he must have quite a staff, those I scrolled through were as paranoid as I am at my best or worst only in the other direction and all seemed to like his stuff.
Silke
Well it is terrorism. Your bombing civilians at their homes or on their way to work. Is it 'as bad' as bombing a pizzeria full of teens? I guess not but then you can say a terrorist the teen bombing terrorist isn't 'as bad' as a terrorist who bombs a preschool. What if graduate classes in physics were bombed? Where do you draw the line?
Yep - its terrorism, Just like the various attempts to kill Hitler were.
Has the world gone crazy (yes)in its inability to identify the bad guys?
For example, there is now a debate on NPR as to whether that Mahmud Osama Mahmud (whatever)from Portland should be let go since he was the "victim" of entrapment. The FBI should only have arrested him AFTER he blew up the crowd in Portland.
As has been pointed out, he didn't say it is "as bad" as the things Yaacov mentioned. Putting something in a category doesn't mean equating it to all other things in that category. So if Yaacov means to argue that it isn't terrorism at all, he should say why. I might even agree, as I don't see the assassinations as having the goal of inciting fear among Iranian civilians or forcing the Iranian government to adopt certain policies; rather, the assassinations seem aimed at depriving the Iranians of certain capabilities. Terrorism or not, however, extrajudicial assassinations of civilians still seems to me to be morally wrong. And that gets at what I think is Greenwald's main (and continually harped on) point: some things aren't right just because they're done by the "Good Guys" and wrong when they're done by the "Bad Guys." Or would the Greenwald bashers on this site have no problem were Iran to reciprocate by assassinating the Israeli pilots who have been trained to take out their nuclear facilities?
And @AKUS: First, reductio ad hitlerium. Second, isn't there a difference between the civilians of a state one isn't at war with and Hitler?
Silk, to answer some of your questions. 400 comments is typical for a Greenwald column. Comments are HEAVILY moderated: anything Greenwald personally disagrees with is almost immediately deleted. Greenwald also keeps a list of Salon regulars he doesn't like and deletes them automatically. Other posters who are 'like' people Greenwald doesn't like are also deleted. Salon has a 'flag post' feature which is 100% ignored when applied to commentors Glenn limes. Glenn also routinely comments in the comment section of his own blog to browbeat and insult commentors. Antisemitic raving is encouraged. It's called 'antizionism' but further past that than even Nazi websites. Commentors who openly call for global Jewish extermination are not deleted.
Keep in mind that Greenwald legally defended Nazi Matt Hale in court. Greenwald has also said if it were possible he would have fought to allow Nazis to march in Skokie Illinois, in that famous case from years ago. Greenwald has worked and written for holocaust denier Pat Buchanan. His blog is oft cited by LaRouche websites. Greenwald considers PressTV and Electronic Intifada, Alex Jones and Mark Elf to be legitimate source.
Greenwald sings the praises of Iran and refused to criticize them for the recent riots and deaths. Greenwald's columns exist to either blame everything in the world on Israel or the US whomever is President or, he screams and
Pouts at other bloggers who disagree with him.
All these moral giants---I mean fools---for whom context means absolutely nothing....
Can't kill terrorists (or their enablers) because how would you feel if terrorists killed your soldiers?
Absolutely brilliant reasoning.
Here's a hard question: Why was that Iranian scientist targeted and not, say, one from India?
As for "bad guys" and "good guys," I would suggest that for people like Greenwald and his ilk, the good guys are, in fact, the Iranians.
Which merely adds to the moral outrage or the morally addled.
But Barry, that's the whole point: sometimes context doesn't matter; sometimes certain things are just wrong (and they call people on the left--sometimes justifiably--moral relativists!), things like extrajudicial assassinations of civilians. And recognizing that is what makes (or is supposed to make) the U.S. and Israel better than the Iranians.
What if graduate classes in physics were bombed?
If the intent were to hamper a country's nuclear capabilities, it would not be terrorism exactly. It might be a repulsively ruthless act of warfare with a dubious aim. There is a whole world of things that are not terrorism, including many bad things.
Sorry, bub.
Context ALWAYS matter.
Take your precious uber-morality and shove it.
And, it should be added, it's the good guys that take "context" and act in accordance with the relative moral decisions within the context they're given, using the cards they've been dealt.
That's why they're called the good guys.
Of course, the bad guys act within their own perverted, murderous and inhuman context.
That's why they're called the bad guys.
Yes, I know you haven't figured it out yet.
Pitiful.
No, it's not terrorism, "because the goal of inciting fear among Iranian civilians or forcing the Iranian government to adopt certain policies."
And it is not "extrajudicial assassinations of civilians" since the person in question is not a citizen of Israel and is not subject of it's judicial system (unless the Iranians killed him).
"rather, the assassinations seem aimed at depriving the Iranians of certain capabilities."
Which makes it similar to bombing an ammunition factory during war, which is morally justified.
Is there some assumption that the unfortunate demise of these Iranian scientists was caused by Israel or the US? Evidence? Sometimes stuff happens!
thanks Trudy!!!
I appreciate it greatly, although you gave me a major bout of the creeps.
------
As to stuff happens:
I read with one eye that the Chinese are not averse to the North Koreans love-feasting with the Iranians.
Now having learned about states dealing with states from reading and real life I wouldn't put it beyond them, the Chinese and/or the North Koreans, to be behind the bombers on motor cycles at the same time. If I were them I could see quite some advantages in embracing them to better stab them.
Also of course, which in my book is the most likely scenario, it may have been an inner-Iranian thing. Where there is an atomic program there are vast amounts of money and prestige slushing around which may trigger all kinds of actions.
and as I btw agree to the view that Israel is in a war of attrition and as I think to act "symmetrical" in an asymmetrical war is the equivalent of tying your hands behind your back before going into a sword fight, I'd consider it ugly but perfectly OK if it had been Israel.
The opinion historians seem to slush around that civilians only started to suffer in vast numbers in the 20th century is spin for which they expect to be rewarded by whom?
Silke
Yep - its terrorism, Just like the various attempts to kill Hitler were.
Hitler was a civilian in Nazi Germany? I thought he was head of state and the supreme military commander.
I might even agree, as I don't see the assassinations as having the goal of inciting fear among Iranian civilians or forcing the Iranian government to adopt certain policies; rather, the assassinations seem aimed at depriving the Iranians of certain capabilities.
Or is it to incite fear among Iranian civilians that may wish to study nuclear physics or work for the gov't? "Depriving of certain capabilities" is a nice way of saying killing a human because he happens to have a brain. You're not blowing up a power plant or centrifuge, you're killing a civilian having his morning coffee in his home with his wife. Why not kill students taking advanced physics classes or newspaper writers in Iran who are fierce advocates of its nuclear program? If I was an Iranian college student who wanted to major in nuclear physics simply because I liked the subject I'd think twice.
Is there some assumption that the unfortunate demise of these Iranian scientists was caused by Israel or the US? Evidence? Sometimes stuff happens!
Hard to say, as we know from wikileaks many countries don't like Iran's nuclear program so it could even be an Arab country like Saudi Arabia. However, Israel does have a reputation for being able to pull off such hits and there's circumstantial evidence their intelligence service was behind the rather sophisticated computer virus that appears to cause no harm to any machine except those that run the centrifuges for refining nuclear material. Plus Israel did reach out to take out Iraq's nuclear program so it's not an unreasonable stretch to think Israel is behind it (and that seems to be a working assumption here). But point taken it very well may be an intra-Iran thing. I'd consider N. Korea or China to be very unlikely.
Which makes it similar to bombing an ammunition factory during war, which is morally justified.
Bombing an ammunition factory? Yes. But again humans are not factories. Come to think of it, by this depraved reasoning blowing up a pizzeria with Isreali teens wouldn't be terrorism either. Israel has compulsory military service and if Iran is at war with Israel that's 'just like' blowing up an ammunition factory. How is that different from blowing up a civilian scientist who may or may not work for Iran's gov't?
The problem is that people suffer anxiety with the context of the word "Terrorism". Why? For as Curtis LeMay once quipped "If we lose this fight we'll be war criminals." And he was precisely right. But that's not what's important. In order to defeat an ideologically driven enemy you have to destroy their physical capability to wage war. Nothing else will suffice. It doesn't matter where the enemy lives or what they dress as or what they do in their day to day lives.
Hitler's status changed quite a bit while he was into creating evil and until Hindenburg's death he may well have qualified as civilian (my doubt is owed to what the Ermächtigungsgesetz did to his status). and even then he hadn't all the command. that came at least officially only from 19 December 1941 to 30 April 1945, Führer and Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler
Please note that as improbable as it may seem there are countries where powers are allocated a bit different from the US ...
All in all I find your argument not convincing. In the war of attrition between Israel and its wannabe eliminators it is clear to me who is the aggressor and self-defence gives one a lot of rights
Anyway that Israel did it stems from one of Greenwald's wet dreams and that's all that's known.
and as long as Wikileaks doesn't get hold of the paper trail that's also all we will ever know
BTW I am all for taking out Iranian top personnel which is helping the bomb along and if there is collateral damage, so be it, because If the strategy should work (that is if it is a strategy) it will mean lots of lives got saved.
Silke
According to Herr Greenwald, Jimmy Carter, and other Democratic stalwarts, nuclear armed N Korea and Iran are to deter the US from other adventures and make the US conform with international norms. This is why the majority of Europeans think that Israel is a greater threat to world peace than Iran or N Korea.Thus, the killing of Iranian scientists is a setback. Nuking of Israel would provide additional benefits to Greenwald, as then the dead Jews could give him a moral high ground. Carter would also benefit in that his replacement theology would be validated.
"Bombing an ammunition factory? Yes. But again humans are not factories."
In what fantasy land people wage war and bomb target without people getting killed. I'd like to know the way to wage war like that. I don't know of any country who has mastered that. but if you know the secret, don't keep it to yourself.
"Depriving of certain capabilities" is a nice way of saying killing a human"
War is a nice way of saying killing a human. Again, what is this place where war is fought without any killing?
"How is that different from blowing up a civilian scientist who may or may not work for Iran's gov't?"
May or may not? Is there doubt that this person was working in Iran's nuclear program?
Boonton, the guys who were killed were not random Iranian civilians and the people who killed them made sure to just kill them. These were people who are key to Iran's nuclear programme, a programme that the two most likely candidates for the operation - Israel and the US - both believe is geared towards a nuclear weapon. The only people it is meant to "spread fear" amongst is Iranian physicists trying to make nuclear weapons. Can you honestly not see the difference between that and targeting women and children in a pizzeria? Seriously?
Danny
He can't.
Seriously.
There are lots like him.
Deal with it.
if I cut off my fingernail it is the same as if I'd cut of a bit of my fingertip
and if I'd cut off a bit of my fingertip it is the same as if I'd cut off the first link of my finger
and if I'd cut off the first link of my finger it is the same as if I'd cut off the whole finger
and if I'd cut off the whole finger it is the same as if I'd cut off the whole hand
and so on and so on and so on
principle mongering is fine as an amuse gueule for the brain,
would be amuse cerveau correct French?
but that's all it is.
Whoever wants to give his/her brain real food to chew on has to take real life's incongruities into the equation.
Silke
@Silke: obviously they're not all the same. But they are all examples of self-mutilation. It's obvious the people in this post aren't going to agree on whether it was terrorism or not. But the continued trotting out of the "so you think it's as bad as...?!!" line is odd, given that no one arguing that it is terrorism has said that it is as bad as other acts of terrorism. I mean seriously, if I say that the vigilante killing of a serial killer is murder, does that mean I think it is as bad as the serial killer's butchering of his victims?
Anon
as it happens I am just through with cutting my finger nails and I assure you I don't feel mutilated ;-)
these "is as" people are just into slandering and slandering of the neither ingenious, nor funny nor well thought out kind.
Post a Comment