Greenwald: The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over

[xocet]

The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over
Ignoring the role played by US actions is dangerously self-flattering and self-delusional

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 April 2013 11.27 EDT

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

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. That the motives for these attacks are still unclear has been acknowledged even by Alan Dershowitz last week ("It's not even clear under the federal terrorism statute that this qualifies as an act of terrorism&quot and Jeffrey Goldberg on Friday ("it is not yet clear, despite preliminary indications, that these men were, in fact, motivated by radical Islam&quot .

Those caveats to the side, the reports about what motivated the Boston suspects are entirely unsurprising and, by now, quite familiar:

"The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 'the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,' the Post writes, citing 'US officials familiar with the interviews.'"

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/boston-terrorism-motives-us-violence

Additionally, Glen Greenwald is to appear on Bill Moyers Journal this weekend on PBS:

http://vimeo.com/64753542

http://billmoyers.com/episode/preview-trading-democracy-for-%E2%80%98security%E2%80%99/

[geek tragedy]

1. Classic Greenwald--accepting the excuses offered by terrorists as the gospel truth.

It never, ever, ever occurs to this clown that the "US abuse of Muslims" grievance gets added after they've decided to kill, and are looking for ways to make their crime a grand statement.

Greenwald just assumes these guys would be going to work every day living the American dream, but then were transformed into bloodthirsty terrorists by US foreign policy.

In doing so, Greenwald inadvertantly makes a case for profiling American Muslims, which shows the bankruptcy of his opportunistic argument.

[xocet]

2. What is your explanation for the various attacks noted in the article? n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. Same cause as Andres Breivik, Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roder, Adam Lanza, Eric Rudolph,

Jared Loughner, Jim David Adkisson, James Wenneker van Brunn, etc etc etc.

Greenwald makes the assumption that Muslims kill because of ideology, religion, and opposition to US foreign policy, but white Christian guys kill because they're just crazy.

Greenwald isn't interested in figuring out why people kill, he's interested in exploiting the tragedies to boost his own ideological and policy arguments.

[SidDithers]

4. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[xocet]

6. My compliments to you - you are very efficient in dispensing content-free statements. n/t

[L0oniX]

34. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[xocet]

5. Your answer deflects the question instead of specifically stating what you believe.

Since I don't know why any of the individuals on your list killed people, your answer of "same cause" is not well-defined enough to present your explanation.

I might presume that you intend to state explicitly that all killers kill since they are crazy: however, this is analogous to accepting the simplistic statement "They hate us because we're free," but in the form "They kill us because they're crazy." Both are over-generalizing statements, and both deny that any analysis of root causes need be done - ironically, the thing that you accuse Greenwald of not wanting to do.

Greenwald makes no such assumption about white, Christian males in the article that is linked to in the OP.

Since you don't present your explanation, but shift immediately to introducing an extraneous assumption and denigrating Greenwald instead of directly addressing my question, I have to ask you again for an explicit response to the question of what your explanation of the attacks listed in Greenwald's article is.

If you want to attempt to use sophistry again, there is no need for you to respond.

[geek tragedy]

8. Precisely my point. Greenwald is not interested in what causes white, Christian, mostly

rightwing terror killers to become the killers that they are.

Neither he nor any purported "root cause" armchair psychologist says "liberal policies on abortion/you name it caused these white rightwing Christian men to kill people" even though that's what they cite as their grievances.

That kind of analysis is confined to instances where the terror killer happens to agree with Glenn Greenwald on a particular subject.

The answer of: "what caused these men to kill" is very complex and specific to each individual, regardless of race, religion, etc. It is also not within Glenn Greenwald's knowledge. He has never met, let alone interviewed these men. He has not done any research on their psychological profiles beyond copying and pasting from news stories.

But, he goes Dr. Frist on them and pronounces the True Cause of their violence.

[xocet]

21. You have no point other than an argument founded on logical fallacy.

You refuse to address the initial question.

Apparently, your only purpose is to execute an ad hominem attack on Greenwald and simultaneously rack up a post count.

Since sophistry is all you have, you need not respond.

[bobduca]

27. Nailed it.

Unsophisticated sophistry is what passes for argument amongst the faithful.

GREENWALD NEVER LOVED OBAMA!!!1111

[msanthrope]

10. Crazy fuckers like to kill people. Beyond that, why does motive matter? nt

[geek tragedy]

11. Also, motive and cause and justification and excuse are all different concepts.

Going by Greenwald's formulation, Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to spread freedom and take out Saddam's WMDs.

[msanthrope]

13. Greenwald is a bit simplistic on concepts, which is why I suspect he no longer has a law license. nt

[bobduca]

28. admit it you just hate greenwald

[geek tragedy]

30. No, he just fails to impress me. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Right. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with anything.

(Whistles past the graveyard.)

[geek tragedy]

18. Do you think 'liberal' policies are to blame for Anders Breivik and Eric Rudolph

becoming terror killers?

Should we re-examine our legalization of abortion in light of how it's radicalized ordinary Christians and caused them to become killers?

If you're gonna play this game with Muslim killers who spout the standard talking points, you gotta play it with everyone.

P.S. Did Osama bomb the embassies and WTC because of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Bonobo]

25. Reductio ad absurdum. nt

[sabrina 1]

22. Greenwald is one of the few actual 'journalists' left in this country. And he isn't even really a

journalist, but that says a lot about the state of our media today. A blogger dares to tell the truth while our brave journalists do as they are told.

Remember HB Gary? Greenwald is a threat to the Corporate State, who would have thought so? After all, according to YOU he is a 'clown'. Apparently not so to the Right Wing Corps who targeted him for the smear job they apply to anyone who speaks the truth.

HB Gary, liars, smear merchants, contractors to the Corporate State.

Thank YOU anonymous for exposing their plans to smear Greenwald, who was just a blogger but apparently even a blogger asking the right questions, is a big enough threat to the Corporate State to get him on a list of those targeted for their smear campaigns.

You are doing a great job of helping them, advertently or inadvertently, either way, they WOULD HAVE WON had it not been for Anonymous. Now your smearing of Greenwald merely raises the question 'why do you feel the need to try to do what HB Gary failed to do? I'm curious, like Greenwald.

[kelliekat44]

7. Over, and over, and over. Osama Bin Laden told us all the reasons for his attacks on America and

Americans. He asked and begged the Saudis to get US military off what they regard as Islamic holy land. It all just seems to go over our war-minded heads as though others can't feel religious zeal, nationalism etc. When will we learn. Why can't we see that people will feel the same way we all did when we saw those planes crashing into the WTC and the time after? When people see their taken, homes destroyed, children, parents, siblings killed by bombs from the sky ... why is it a mystery that they hate the oppressors and attackers?

[msanthrope]

9. You really think Osama Bin Laden was telling the truth? You think he gets to speak on what

is Islamic holy land, and what the Islamic religion should do in response to a percieved threat?

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. He gets to speak on what motivates him.

[geek tragedy]

20. So did George W Bush when he said he was invading Iraq

to promote freedom and safety.

Doesn't mean people should believe the snakes.

[msanthrope]

26. And you believe him? You believe that he'd favor you

with the truth?

[L0oniX]

35. The US gov tells the truth???

[msanthrope]

37. But we are talking about Bin Laden. What do you think

about his veracity?

[geek tragedy]

12. So, we should let terrorists tell us what to do, as should other governments? nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. No, we should have a better, more just foreign policy, regardless of what Osama said.

[geek tragedy]

19. Then there's no need to engage in the Dr Frist psychoanalysis that Greenwald

indulges in.

[L0oniX]

36. +1

[tblue37]

14. The Unabomber said in his journals that he just wanted to kill. His

environmentalist, anti-technology excuse was just that, he said--an excuse to justify acting on his desire to kill. I don't take killers at their word. Maybe the reason they give is the real reason, or maybe it's self-justification, or even just messin' with the "audience."

[xiamiam]

23. glenn greewald is brilliant, reasoned and logical yet ..wish we had millions like him

we dont unfortunately.

[brooklynite]

24. I guess the Tea Party threats are legitimate as well...

After all, they're consistently saying Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-Gay socialists...

[xocet]

31. You fail to distinguish between a threat being legitimate and a justification being morally founded.

Any group which has the means to carry out a threat may issue a legitimate threat whether or not their justification for the threat makes any sense morally. The OP only asks that you consider the moral value of the justifications that have been made - the moral value of the actions that require said justifications is clearly base, since it is never proper to hurt the innocent. This sword, however, cuts both ways and that is exactly what you need to reflect on if you want to understand the OP.

[grantcart]

29. and those same terrorist groups also feel that the US is responsible for moral decline because

it continues to support increasing civil rights and liberties to Gays and Lesbians.


Somehow Glenn missed that part.

This from last months' Inspire magazine

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/01/al_qaeda_condemns_obama_catholics_for_supporting_gay_couples

Perhaps most disturbingly, the magazine features a side graphic that reads "JUST MARRIED" in blood-stained letters next to an image of former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and his husband Jim Ready. The image appears to be a Photoshopped version of a photograph taken by the New York Times at Frank's wedding in July of last year. Below the image, the script reads "Barney Franks, Gay Congressman, Symbol of the American Dream."

[xocet]

32. Your statement is unrelated to whether the US should reflect on its foreign policy and whether...

that foreign policy should be modified so that the US may preserve some goodwill in foreign lands. Nowhere does the OP state that the US should change its foreign policy to suit the whims of Al-Queda. Instead, the idea is to modify the foreign policy so as not to alienate foreign populations who might be our allies against Al-Queda.

Your post is a base, ad hominem attack on Greenwald - it essentially says that Greenwald is a poor gay fool who is not smart enough to recognize his own enemies. That is not much of a rational argument against the OP.

[grantcart]

33. It is an absurdlly juvenile observation by the OP

These 2 fellows came from a family with 4 attorneys and made an elaborate and very clever manipulation of the US refugee asylum laws to come here on tourist visas AFTER the US had started its wars.

They were well received by the people of Boston where they were received as friends.

They could have gone to Canada where their Aunt already had asylum but did not do that they came here, like tens of thousands of others who claim refugee asylum because they considered it safe, respected the freedom that they would get, and have tremendous economic opportunity. They could have at any time left to return to their home country, where truthfully, they never faced real persecution.

One of them married a Christian girl, forced her to convert and beat her up. He dreamed of representing the US at the Olympics. The other received a $ 25,000 scholarship for college.

All of these things happened after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the boxer never succeeded and because of his conviction was denied citizenship and had no path to a successful life.

Only when his personal life was in shreds did the older brother search for a way to lash out. And he took his younger brother with him. (It is now possible that the older brother was involved in the murder of 3 pot dealers in revenge for his brother's constant pot smoking but let's leave this highly conjectural part of the story out of it.)

They actively participated in the American dream when they could have gone to Canada or elsewhere. They didn't. Their parents cannot believe that they would turn their backs on the people that have took them in and find no justification for it whatsoever.

But put all of that aside.

You are willing to believe what two people say is their motivation after they tried to kill 100 people and cold bloodedly gunned down a cop after their terrorist activities. That is the height of gullibility. It is the kind of gullibility that Glenn Greenwald displays on a regular basis. Here is a hint: If a person is willing to kill hundreds of people maybe they don't have the moral center to tell the truth.

Their motivation is the same as the CT, CO and all of the other idiot mass murders we see, including Kevin McVeigh: They are frustrated with the mediocrity or failure of their personal life and seek to gain attention in a narcissistic blood letting. Of course they are going to say something. Personally though I think that if the guy was really upset about either of the wars he wouldn't have spent years at the Wai Khru gym in Boston trying desperately to become the US representative in the Olympics.

[xocet]

38. Did you even read Greenwald's entire article?

Also, who is Kevin McVeigh? If that is an example of how closely you are following any of this, why bother posting?

As Upton Sinclair said (pg. 109 of I, Candidate for Governor: And how I Got Licked (1935, UC Press)): "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"