Molly Norris, American Cartoonist and Victim of Terror, and Glenn Greenwald.

[msanthrope]

Anybody remember Molly Norris? She's the woman who started Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

It was a brilliant, creative idea designed to strike back against censorship. In response, a terrorist piece of shit issued a fatwa against her, calling her "a prime target of assassination." In 2013, she appeared on AlQaeda's latest Most Wanted list, along with Stephane Charbonnier, Editor of Charlie Hedbo. Stephane Charbonnier is dead today.

What happened to Molly Norris? She's gone....a ghost. She changed her name, went off the grid, and went into hiding on the advice of the FBI, and she stopped drawing her cartoons.

What happened to the terrorist? We drone struck his ass. We were trying to drone strike him long before he threatened Molly Norris, since he had a bad habit of fomenting terror in the US.

Now---whose "free speech" rights was Glenn Greenwald concerned with?

Glenn Greenwald, defended Awlaki, wondering what the US did that turned this "moderate" into a radical. He made the amazing, and demonstrably false claim that Awlaki was targeted for his exercise of free speech---specifically, for his "anti-American sermons."

Now, think about that for a second. Mr. Greenwald accused the President of the United States of targeting a cleric for exercising his free speech. Not for Awlaki's involvement with Rajib Karim in the British Airways bomb plot. Not for his involvement with sending PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues. Not for his involvement in the Christmas Underwear Plot, or Fort Hood, or any of the other acts of terror Awlaki either had a direct hand in, or supported and encouraged. And not for the murder that Awlaki was convicted of, and was fugitive from.

Awlaki was targeted by President Obama for his free speech, according to Greenwald. Now, to buttress this claim, Greenwald and his supporters have continually pushed the myth that Awlaki was a moderate in 2001 who was later radicalized by the actions of America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anwar Awlaki was a massive intelligence failure on the part of the Bush/Cheney administration. It is no coincidence that four 9/11 hijackers associated with him, or that the Fort Hood shooter's family went to his mosque. Awlaki was no "moderate." What he was, was an operative. And Bush/Cheney, trying to find WMDs in Iraq, were too preoccupied to clean up actual AlQaeda in either Afghanistan, or here. Hell.....they missed twenty hijackers all going to flight school. You think they couldn't have missed an operative disguising himself as a "moderate" cleric?

Think about it for a second....Greenwald's claim that Awlaki was moderate rests on the idea that the Bush/Cheney intelligence community was competent in 2001. Alternatively, he claims that Awlaki's association with the Washington Post well, proves something. I defy any person here to watch Awlaki's October 2001 sermon and not feel precisely the same way Ray Suarez felt....

While talking of his feelings of grievance, he chose his words carefully. Very carefully. One could walk away from the Friday sermon, or from the interview, struck by how in his rhetoric he could dance right up to the edge of condoning violence, taking the side of anti-American forces in the Muslim world, and then, just as carefully, reel it back in, pulling the punch, softening the context, covering the sharp-edged scalpel of his words in a reassuring sheath.

So why would Greenwald push the meme that Awlaki was killed for his free speech by President Obama? Why would anyone push the meme that Awlaki was a "moderate" at any time? Why would anyone claim that the Bush/Cheney intelligence community was competent? Why would anyone conveniently forget Awlaki's acts of terror, including the fatwa against a fellow member of the media?

I cannot figure out why someone who presents himself as a Progressive would do these things.

But I do know this.....if I had the choice to write about the free speech rights of anyone and have lots of people read that article, I would write about how a cartoonist from Seattle had to go into hiding--and is still there--all because a terrorist in a cave in Yemen got het up over a frickin' cartoon. I would call her a patriot---for she might die for simply expressing one of the fundamentals of our democracy. Molly Norris stood up for free speech and will never get her old life back. I hope she has a new, good, and peaceful life.

I wouldn't waste a fucking line writing apologia for a piece of shit terrorist who thought that a cartoon merited death.

[MohRokTah]

1. Greenwald's agenda and the truth are two distinct things. eom

[msanthrope]

4. I just took a look at French media....AQAP might be behind the shooting..Awlaki's old crew...

Wednesday’s attack was several orders of magnitude more sophisticated and deadly than these earlier efforts. One early eyewitness account suggests that Wednesday’s gunmen identified themselves as members of “al-Qaida in Yemen,” which is likely a reference to the Yemen-based chapter more commonly known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. AQAP isn’t linked to ISIS, though its compatriots in Jabhat al-Nusra have also been targeted by Western airstrikes in recent months. Whether or not it turns out that the gunmen were under orders from AQAP or another group, this was an attack that likely took extensive planning and coordination.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2015/01/07/france_was_on_edge_over_terrorism_even_before_the_charlie_hebdo_attack.html

[Blue_Tires]

2. Good stuff...kick

Maybe more will listen if it comes from you instead of me...

[grasswire]

28. oh sure nt

[zappaman]

3. Par for the course for that guy.

[msanthrope]

8. You know, I was criticized for calling out Greenwald's representation of Nazis in civil

suits against them for their violence. Of course, Greenwald's incompetence in one civil suit lead to the Nazis settling....so there's that.

But this.....what political agenda allows for this?

[uhnope]

44. "what political agenda allows for this?" No real agenda.

Careerist narcissism using the tools of knee-jerk anti-Americanism cloaked in a fake progressivism.

Your OP is one of the best I've ever read.

[Behind the Aegis]

174. BOOM! There it is!

Plus, it allowed him to post all kinds of anti-Semitic filth, a win-win for his alleged "progressive" creds.

[uhnope]

175. my god, there's something really wrong with Greenwald

"in solidarity with freedom of the press" he chooses to print only anti-Semitic cartoons
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

I'm no fan of Israel's occupation of Palestine, btw.

But this creepy move proves to me the final resolution of the bizarre segment of the anti-American left that will side with Russia, Syria and Iran just because they are currently in conflict with the US.

Do you want to start a thread on this, or should I? Greenwald is OVER

[FSogol]

5. K & R. n/t

[randome]

6. It's like Greenwald is half asleep when he composes his stuff.

He never sees the entire picture.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

9. He's not half-asleep---he counts on his readership to be. nt

[whatchamacallit]

7. No opportunity too tasteless to thrash Greenwald eh?

Pathetic.

[msanthrope]

10. Indeed....how horrible of me not to take GG's reputation into account before correctly

noting the association between the people shot today and Molly Norris.

Oh yeah--the British media is already reporting on the AQAP hit list I referenced-----

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting-al-qaeda-hit-list-named-cartoonist-stephane-charbonnier-1482383

French media is reporting that it may be AQAP from eyewitness accounts of what the gunmen yelled. That would be Mr. Awlaki's old crew.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Well if ibtimes says so...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/08/05/meet-the-mysterious-duo-who-just-bought-newsweek/

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background

[msanthrope]

13. Did they take over the The Wire, too...my source in the OP which reported the hit list in 2013?

Are you suggesting The Wire made this up in 2013?



http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/03/al-qaeda-most-wanted-list/62673/


I can't see how an answer would not involve the Illuminati and a time machine, so I can't wait......

[whatchamacallit]

15. I'm suggesting your interest in the truth

is nil.

[msanthrope]

19. I will happily debate the truth with you....is there a single fact I've presented you take issue

with?

Because your critique seems to be centered around displeasure that I wrote about Mr. Greenwald.

[whatchamacallit]

22. My critique

is centered on the obsessive and shameless nature of your smears.

[msanthrope]

46. Indeed....I'm still waiting for your critique. nt

[cheapdate]

152. I thought it was about "truth".

[bettyellen]

20. what exactly do you contend is untrue in anything she has written here?

looks pretty well sourced and accurate to me.

[whatchamacallit]

23. It's the frenzied interpretive dance with facts I take issue with. n/t

[bahrbearian]

40. +1

[msanthrope]

64. Are you sure? Or do you take issue with my description of the 9/11 hijackers? nt

[whatchamacallit]

65. What is your description?

[msanthrope]

67. In my OP. nt

[whatchamacallit]

70. I see what you called al-Awlaki

but I'm missing your characterization of the 9/11 suspects.

[msanthrope]

73. Do you believe they exist? nt

[whatchamacallit]

74. Of course

So what did you say about them?

[msanthrope]

77. Just wondering. You seem to have previously described them as "woo."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=296597&mesg_id=296628

I wondered why you were so upset by my OP, but you haven't been able to show a single fact your dispute.

To the jury.....it is not against the TOS to search for prior posts.....in fact, there's a helpful search box provided by admin to do so.

[whatchamacallit]

82. Haha I get what you're trying to do

That statement is in reference to the veracity of the narrative of events, not a denial of the hijackers. But party on...

So how did you describe the 9/11 hijackers in your OP?

[msanthrope]

83. Ah....so what fact of mine do you dispute? nt

[whatchamacallit]

87. To start with

your bullshit contention that we know all we need know about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 yr old son. Especially, as much of the outrage in your ridiculous OP is based on your acceptance of extralegal assassination. Seems like something you'd find on FR.

[msanthrope]

88. First, I never contented that we know all we need to know. I think that every single bit of

information we can release should be released. I think the testimony provided in open court, coupled with the release of the most recent memo has been a good thing.

Second, I don't accept extralegal assassination was what Mr. Awlaki was subject to. He was afforded the due process he was entitled to, and made the choice to 1) not surrender, and 2) not challenge his designation. Like Osama Bin Laden, he was killed under the lawful authority of the President.

[whatchamacallit]

89. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact

that "He was afforded the due process he was entitled to". And what of the boy, do you maintain the same absurd notion for him?

[msanthrope]

91. It absolutely is a fact. As a non-custodial member of AQAP, actively engaged in terror, he was

subject to kill or capture, just like Bin Laden.

Had he chosen to become custodial we would have had to afford him the rights given to custodial enemy combatants as outlined in Boumediene v. Bush

As for Awlaki's son, I think it was tragic that the drone strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna killed him. I blame Awlaki for putting his son in terrible danger.

[whatchamacallit]

96. This is an old Atlantic article that I'll leave for DUers

who respect the spirit of the law, not just the letter. I've decided we share so little, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally... that it's pointless to continue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-thorniest-question-when-can-a-president-order-an-american-killed/245963/

[msanthrope]

99. Hey--when GG decided to blame Canada for its terrorist shooting a few months ago, did you

express to him that you thought it was tasteless? Too soon?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705288

And as for your Atlantic article.....well, it backs up exactly what I said, legally. And thank you for providing even more evidence of Greenwald's apologia.

[whatchamacallit]

101. It also rightly questions the bad laws and opinions

authoritarians tools cleave to, and warns of the creeping fascism that can overtake a lazy and complacent citizenry...

[msanthrope]

105. Yeah...I'm really good with how the likes of Bin Laden left the earth. How about you? nt

[whatchamacallit]

106. I'm not good with it at all

Not because what it meant for him, but what it means for us.

[msanthrope]

107. Yeah.....just not seeing the downside to Bin Laden's death. Do tell. nt

[Octafish]

159. He doesn't get to tell his side of the story in a court of law.

There's a lot to learn:

Questions Linger About Bushes and BCCI

Analysis by Lucy Komisar
Inter Press Service (IPS) – April 4, 2007

EXCERPT...

The CIA used BCCI Islamabad and other branches in Pakistan to funnel some of the two billion dollars that Washington sent to Osama bin Laden’s Mujahadeen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It moved the cash the Pakistani military and government officials skimmed from U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen. It also moved money as required by the Saudi intelligence services.

The BCCI operation gave Osama bin Laden an education in offshore black finance that he would put to use when he organised the jihad against the United States. He would move money through the Al-Taqwa Bank, operating in offshore Nassau and Switzerland with two Osama siblings as shareholders.

SNIP...

Kickbacks from 15 percent commissions on BNL-sponsored loans were channeled into bank accounts held for Iraqi leaders via BCCI offices in the Caymans as well as in offshore Luxembourg and Switzerland. BNL was a client of Kissinger Associates, and Henry Kissinger was on the bank’s international advisory board, along with Brent Scowcroft, who would become George Bush Sr.’s national security advisor. That connection makes the Bush administration’s surprise and indignation at “oil for food” payoffs in Iraq seem disingenuous.

Important Saudis were influential in the bank. Sheik Kamal Adham, brother-in-law of the late Saudi King Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1963 to 1979, and the CIA’s liaison in the area, became one of BCCI’s largest shareholders. George Bush Sr. knew Adham from his time running the CIA in 1975.

Another investor was Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, who succeeded Adham as Saudi intelligence chief. The family of Khalid Salem bin Mahfouz, owner of the National Commercial Bank, the largest bank in Saudi Arabia, banker to King Fahd and other members of the ruling family, bought 20 to 30 percent of the stock for nearly one billion dollars. Bin Mahfouz (shown here) was put on the board of directors.

SNIP...

The Bushes’ private links to the bank passed to Bin Mahfouz through Texas businessman James R. Bath, who invested money in the United States on behalf of the Saudi. In 1976, when Bush was the head of the CIA, the agency sold some of the planes of Air America, a secret “proprietary” airline it used during the Vietnam War, to Skyway, a company owned by Bath and Bin Mahfouz. Bath then helped finance George W. Bush’s oil company, Arbusto Energy Inc., in 1979 and 1980. - See more at: http://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2007/04/questions-linger-about-bushes-and-bcci/#sthash.8poseGth.dpuf

CONTINUED...

http://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2007/04/questions-linger-about-bushes-and-bcci/

So, there's that and the rest from the Dead Men Don't Tell Tales Department of Just-Us.

[msanthrope]

160. So President Obama hushed up Bin Laden to save the Bushes??? nt

[Octafish]

161. No, that's what you wrote.

"Dead men tell no tales." That's what I wrote.

If bin Laden were to reveal what he know, I bet it likely we'd learn a lot about the criminal connections between those waging the war on terror and those conducting the terror that begets the war in perpetuity.

Gee, msanthrope: I thought as a lawyer, you'd be one to appreciate that.

[zappaman]

164. LOL!

You never fail to make me laugh!

[Octafish]

165. What do you know!

LOL.

[zappaman]

166. Right?

[Octafish]

167. I thought Democrats cared about Civil Rights, even those with whom they disagree?

Drone Killings and Torture: Peace Activists to be “Rehabilitated” in Jail

http://www.accuracy.org/release/drone-killings-and-torture-peace-activists-to-be-rehabilitated-in-jail/

[zappaman]

168. "With whom they disagree"?

I'd say it was a bit more than a "disagreement" with Osama, wouldn't you?

[Octafish]

169. Is your ignorance intentional, zappaman?

It's hard to tell.

[zappaman]

170. When it comes to "intentional ignorance", I certainly bow to your expertise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6060015

[Octafish]

172. To quote me requires you write ''ignorance intentional,'' zappaman.

Otherwise, you are inventing something I did not say, again.

[zappaman]

173. Lol!

And your defense in that thread of a homophobic, holocaust-denying, anti-Semite is duly noted.

"Ignorance intentional" indeed.

[Octafish]

178. It indicates what you know about journalism and research, zappaman.

Which, going by responses to my posts, is nothing to brag about. Here are several examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024070535

[zappaman]

179. I know not to defend anti-Semites....

Or homophobes.
Which is more than I can say for you.

[elias49]

182. Rather defend extrajudicial killing? nt

[bettyellen]

69. LOL, so you can't defend your accusation. Noted.

[uhnope]

47. oh please. Anyone reading your posts can see you are projecting

your own lack of interest in the truth onto another. Your interest is apparently hero worship of Greenwald

[Number23]

68. That's about as shameless an attempt to derail a thread I've ever seen

Apparently that person thinks that simply accusing the OP of trying to "smear" Greenwald has the same weight as the link after link of substantiated facts presented in the OP. And then keeps chanting "smear" even after several people have asked him/her what exactly the smears are.

It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.

[NewDeal_Dem]

180. interesting.

But they come with a backstory that is unusual for the mainstream media. The pair started their company in 2006 reportedly after meeting via Christian fellowships, and have frequently been the subject of reports linking them to David Jang, a controversial Korean pastor who is also the founder of Olivet University, an evangelical school based in San Francisco, California.

Davis once taught journalism at Olivet, and his wife, Tracy, is the university’s president. Uzac sat on Olivet’s board of trustees until last year, and his wife, Marion, who has also worked at IBT Media, was previously the press secretary for the World Evangelical Alliance. Olivet is a member of the alliance and Jang sits on the alliance’s North American council. Olivet graduates have been hired to work in a number of roles at IBT Media. The Guardian has confirmed that as Olivet expands its operations around the US, IBT Media has given money to the college.

Davis said in an interview that their work and faith were separate, and that he wanted “the journalism to speak for itself” both at their new magazine and at the International Business Times, a news website that was IBT Media’s flagship title until it bought Newsweek.

Similarly, he dismissed the notion that readers should be troubled by the little-known fact that he has personally endorsed the view, espoused by the so-called “ex-gay” movement, that gay people may have developed their sexuality as a result of being sexually abused as children, and can be cured by therapy to make them heterosexual.

In a Facebook post in February 2013, Davis described as "shockingly accurate" an op-ed article written by Christopher Doyle, the director of the International Healing Foundation (IHF), which works to convert gay people. Davis said it “cuts like a hot knife through a buttery block of lies”.



http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background

[George II]

43. If you took Greenwald's reputation into accout, your post would have been more scathing.

[arthritisR_US]

58. I would think so too. The only one damaging

to GG's reputation is GG'S himself, IMO.

[Scootaloo]

108. Well, any excuse to exploit the dead, I suppose

[msanthrope]

109. When GG blamed Canada for its terror attack that killed a reservist, did you tell him that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705288

[Scootaloo]

110. I'm talking about you, msanthrope, and your exploitation of murder

[msanthrope]

115. Oh right--weren't you on that thread, defending Mr. Greenwald? nt

[Scootaloo]

123. I was pointing out the idiocy of several posters and their selective reading ability

And now, I'm pointing out your exploitation of the dead to score points in your ongoing whining about Glenn Greenwald. Do you think putting the slain cartoonists on strings and jiggling them around as you are doing, is going to make some sort of a difference?

[msanthrope]

126. Which posters were idiots? You seem to have a hypocritical stance--GG can talk about

terror victims, but I am not supposed to talk about GG.

[grasswire]

27. ^^^

Obsessive.

[Maedhros]

45. These OPs are useful to me, in that I can watch who "K&R's" them

and promptly place those people on my ignore list.

I have no time for anti-civil-rights Democrats.

[OilemFirchen]

55. I've never recommended a thread before.

But I just did.

Kick for a marvelous OP.

[George II]

71. Interesting - I too have NEVER done so but just did...

...a lot of time, hard work, research, AND rational truth in that post.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

56. Why you believe your ignore list

is of interest to anyone else is an unfathomable mystery.

[11 Bravo]

72. I'll save you a bit of time. I just Rec'd the OP, so please ...

place me on your little list. (Although why you think that anyone gives a flying fuck about who you have on ignore will have to remain one of life's little mysteries.)

[Ikonoklast]

80. And those supporting murder apologist Glenn Greenwald?

Put me on your little list, skippy.

Fuck GG.

[greatauntoftriplets]

84. I'm crushed!

No, I'm not at all.

[Andy823]

94. Let me help you. K&R

Those who put everyone on their ignore list that disagrees with them are no really interested in the truth, or real discussion.

[Hekate]

112. Goody. Am I on your ignore list? I have no time for people who fail to use citations and research.

Those used to count for something at DU. Not so much any more.

[great white snark]

113. I stand with msanthrope and the facts.

Two treasures that we as Democrats should hold dearly.

[msanthrope]

146. Thank you. nt

[leftynyc]

177. Put me on ignore

Hope you realize I couldn't possibly care less

[Hekate]

12. Thank you for the research, msanthrope. That used to count for something here.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Molly.

[msanthrope]

17. i've been talking about Molly Norris on this site for a few years now....anytime someone posts

apologia for Awlaki......any DUer can search my username and her name to read what some DUers wrote in reply.

I hope she is well and safe.

[Spazito]

14. Well done! I could not agree more with your points...

all of them.

"I cannot figure out why someone who presents himself as a Progressive would do these things."

[MineralMan]

18. K&R! Good research. Greenwald occasionally says something sensible.

But only occasionally. Those who agree with his sensible statements appear to find it easy to ignore the rest of the garbage he says. Lionizing people for an occasional correct statement, yet ignoring all of the garbage is a symptom of something. I'm not sure what that something is, but I've seen a lot of it.

The corollary is ignoring a great deal of good done by someone because one disagrees with a couple of things one doesn't like. I see that reaction from some of the same people.

Now, we'll watch to see who shows up to slam your OP. It should be interesting and informative.

[Spazito]

24. I might quibble with you as to Greenwald saying something sensible...

as whatever he writes invariably contains a vitriolic attack on President Obama, Democrats no matter the subject. Spurious attacks seem to be his forte and I don't find them sensible at all.

"Lionizing people for an occasional correct statement, yet ignoring all of the garbage is a symptom of something." Well said, it certainly is a symptom of something for sure.

Edited to add: I think you meant your post to be to the OP not my post.

[MineralMan]

30. I did mean it for the OP, yes. My error.

But I'll leave the post, with this followup.

[Spazito]

34. Thanks, leaving it does allow more continuity n/t

[arthritisR_US]

60. The GG'S reminds me of the Libertarian ilk...

narcissistic and immature in equal parts.

[Spazito]

62. Yep, his Libertarian roots run deep...

'it's all about me' narcissism is constantly on display as are his immature tantrums when criticized.

[arthritisR_US]

78. That's the impression he has always left me with.

Someone else in this thread about GG and Rand Paul in the same sentence and bloody hell if that pairing hasn't come to my mind since I started reading posts here. Rand Paul has said one or two things in his time I agreed with and so too has GG. They are both dishonest little lads who like broke clocks get some things right ... just not as often as the broke clock.

GG's narcissism is pathological and when his motives and logic are questioned he turns into a petulant child.

[Spazito]

81. I remember when Rand Paul was challenged on his comments re the Civil Rights Act...

and he denied he said them even though they were on video where everyone could see and hear them. He's an opportunistic pos, imo, just like Greenwald who refuses to admit he's a Libertarian, a Libertarian who supports the racist Pauls.

Pathological liars, imo.

[arthritisR_US]

85. Peas in a pod, if you ask me. nt

[msanthrope]

26. If you did a Venn of the two types you are describing, one circle red, one blue, it would be

very, very purple in the middle when applied to this website.

Thank you for your compliment. I am not a good writer, but I can hunt and dig like no one's business.

[MineralMan]

32. Yes. I think you're correct.

My previous post should have been a reply to your OP. My mistake.

[msanthrope]

21. I truly wonder why someone who has accused the President of killing a terrorist for their

speech....whilst simultaneously ignoring the fatwa issued by the same terrorist to kill a cartoonist....is an allowable source on this site.

[Spazito]

25. I wonder why DUers continue to consider his screeds acceptable even lauditory...

and remain silent when his blatant hypocrisy is pointed out as you have done in your OP.

[msanthrope]

29. Greenwald is very like Newt Gingrich---he sounds like what a smart person is supposed

to sound like to the audience he is targeting (or so they think.) He writes--and responds in a manner that does not invite debate...and his vitriol towards others is vicariously amusing.

[Spazito]

31. Greenwald's thin skin when it comes to criticism mirrors Limbaugh's as well...

I have little doubt he will find reason to blame the President/Democrats for the attack in France as well.

[msanthrope]

35. He is very thin-skinned. You can tell from both the vitriol, and the screeds he produces in defense

when he feels attacked.

I have no doubt.....none at all, that he has a username on DU.

[Spazito]

38. I have often thought the same...

"I have no doubt.....none at all, that he has a username on DU."

[MineralMan]

48. Yes. I remember the time I referred to him as a libertarian and a

Rand Paul supporter in an old DU thread. He found that problematic enough that he linked to my post and called me a Manichean on another website. While I was honored by his recognition of my humble words, I found it odd that he saw my post as black-and-white thinking. It's all gray when it comes to Greenwald. Perhaps it is gray to him, as well, since he often seems puzzled as to what he actually believes.

I'm always puzzled by the hero worship he inspires in some.

[msanthrope]

57. He's gotta get a thesaurus, or some new material. He beat that term to death in one of his books

about George Bush....in 2007. A little late to the party, eh?

I think the book is available on cryptome, or a pdf on the web. I bet you are gonna find Ron Paul sourcing in it, too.

[uhnope]

49. Greenwald is an unstable narcissist

[asjr]

41. Greenwald is very much like Newt Gingrich. Each

digs a hole so deep it is almost impossible to find the way out. And that is the time each finds it necessary to say anything while they are trying to climb out.

[SidDithers]

16. This is one of the best posts I've read at DU in a long, long time...

My hat's off to you, msanthrope.



Sid

[whatchamacallit]

37. + a googol

[MineralMan]

50. Apparently not everyone agrees with your praise.

Odd, that, isn't it.

[whatchamacallit]

53. And on a day when DU is in an uproar over freedom of expression

Odd, that, isn't it.

[KittyWampus]

98. Maedhros is so full of freedom of expression s/he made a big deal about who

s/he is putting on ignore.

Laugh out loud.

[Spazito]

111. LOL, good point!

[msanthrope]

42. You mean that Rajib Karim was unlawfully convicted? The emails between him and Awlaki, presented in

open court were faked?

Nidal Malik Hasan was unlawfully convicted? The contacts between him and Awlaki, presented in open court, were faked?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab lied in his confession, and was unlawfully convicted after he admitted in open court to his association with Awlaki????

Are you suggesting that Molly Norris was not threatened? That that was faked and I am lying?

That's an awful lot of skullduggery on the part of the government, there.

Anwar Awlaki was killed with due process. I can explain to you the due process, if you like. I can also explain to you why Darren Wilson did not afford Mike Brown due process.

[MineralMan]

52. That poster won't be able to reply to you.

Apparently he wrote something unwise and has been chidden for it.

[msanthrope]

59. That is a wonderful portmanteau of "chide" and "hidden." I am going to use it. nt

[MineralMan]

117. I've used that for years. I think of

hide and hidden. I love word play!

[George II]

36. Great post, thanks. Greenwald is a self serving, duplicitous piece of garbage

[SunSeeker]

39. K & R

[uhnope]

51. KR

[alarimer]

54. So you support summarily executing American citizens with no due process?

You make me sick.

[msanthrope]

61. I contend that Mr. Awlaki had plenty of due process, and would be more than happy to debate that

with you if you can refrain from insult.

[Cha]

75. "You make me sick".. Oooops, your words just boomeranged!

[JI7]

63. there is a lot of dishonesty when these things are brought up

i guess because they feel their position would be weakened if they actually mentioned the facts.

i'm not surprised about this coming from greenwald. it's the usual sleazy shit he does.

[CrawlingChaos]

66. UNREC

On so many levels, this OP is appalling.

[stupidicus]

76. indeed, when the first thought in the aftermath of such a tragedy

is to use it to bash someone who isn't here to defend themselves, well...

There's no mystery to either the motive for such or the result, given the content of the resulting responses.

I suppose we should be pleasantly surprised that none of them have yet to give GG some at least vicarious responsibility for the actions of the terrorists in this instance, given all that real or imagined positive reinforcement he provided to a guy (now as far removed from this situation as you can get) he thought was denied due process.

[msanthrope]

79. What makes you think Greenwald isn't here? MM upthread described GG linking to one of his posts.

Last edited Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I have no doubt GG maintains a username here.

Oh...and aftermath of a tragedy? I bet you were just as outraged when Glenn decided to blame Canada for terrorist shootings....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705288

[stupidicus]

90. plenty

and his linking to a post from "MM" of all people only makes a case for his awareness of it, not how he was made aware of it.

The only thing I have "no doubts" about is that you found this tragedy to be good platform from which to launch an assault against him.

How many other high profile BHO critics do you think are maintaining a username here?

[msanthrope]

92. So when GG used the tragedy of shootings in Canada to say they had it coming.....

you were just as outraged??????


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705288

[Spazito]

95. Geez, I totally missed that thread...

Ugh, typically Greenwald, typically ugly.

[msanthrope]

97. Note the hypocrisy....Glenn can blame terrorism on the victims, but I'm the bad person

for mentioning that we have an American cartoonist who is still in hiding.

[Spazito]

102. Yep, hypocrisy abounds, imo, among those who would defend the indefensible...

defend the terrorists while blaming the innocent victims, defend Greenwald's very hypocrisy with hypocrisy themselves.

[stupidicus]

103. that's meaningless garbage

and what he had to say differs not substantively from the case Rev Wright made that rightwingers tell the same lies about.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/hapless-tv-news-hosts-refuse-call-out

gee, now that you've established beyond all doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that GG fully supported those attacks because they "had it coming", how far are we from some real guilt attribution for the tragedy you've exploited here?

Furthermore, he didn't use that tragedy as a club to bash some non-involved party with as was the case here, but merely explained the motivations for the attack. That you'd more than imply that he seemingly condones it on some level with the "had it coming" stuff only lends credence to the case I'm making here, and highlights the weaknesses of your own as the change the subject to me BS it is. GG is no more approving of the needless killing that you or I am.

I'm no more outraged with his effort there than I was with the one Rev Wright made. It's the same case as I recall, OBL made in the wake of 9/11 -- a no brainer denied only by the brainless. That truth is immutable, and the only diff here is that OBL, unlike the others, used it to justify the killing of innocents.

[KittyWampus]

100. Wait- we can't critique Greenwald unless he's here to defend himself? Does that logic apply

to all the people Greenwald bashes?

And posting facts is bashing?

[msanthrope]

104. Kitty..I have no doubt GG is here....google "Greenwald" and "sock puppet" and you will read the most

hilarious fricken story about his trolling....he's infamous for it. He tried trolling some winger blogs, and got caught.

Now....full disclosure....I've had an online identity at FR that I've used to troll since the Clinton impeachment....eventually they will catch me..

[KittyWampus]

128. Yes but according to the "logic" of previous poster we can't critique anyone unless they are here.

Except Obama. And Hillary.

LOL!

[msanthrope]

130. Note that not a single one of them has provided a dispute of facts? nt

[Spazito]

138. I noticed that!

I wonder if it is the inability to dispute the facts in the OP is what is really causing the wave of nausea some seem to be experiencing, lol.

[Number23]

141. Oh, that has been WELL noted. As well as the attacks on Cali_Dem for daring to post Greenwald's

own words in that other thread about Canada that you linked to upthread.

Well and TRULY noted. You betcha.

[msanthrope]

143. You know, for a long time, blue links were eschewed. I think when you are dealing with GG.....

you need to simply hammer home the horseshit he writes, over and over.

[stupidicus]

149. good grief

nobody wrote or implied that.

That he isn't here to defend himself -- which he doubtlessly would be more than capable of doing against any of his less than competent critics here -- is a simple and undisputed fact, and one exploited by the top poster, as was this tragedy for the "bashing" purposes.

And anyone GG "bashes" is likely to hear or read about it, which would afford them the opportunity to "bash" back, unlike this effort from an obscure nobody on DU.

And since when does "bashing"

: to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>

require what, falsehood use? Gee what's next, the top poster wasn't "attacking" GG?

Too funny -- you don't even know the definitions for the BS you're peddling, but think yourself capable of what exactly?

[treestar]

137. What an interesting, thought provoking

point by point critique!

[Cha]

86. Thank you for once again exposing the ODS of GG that is so entrenched it makes him

stupid. Knowing of course that he has a following that will eat that crazy talk up and ask for more.

Excellent OP, msanthrope thank you.

[msanthrope]

93. Thank you, friend. nt

[LittleBlue]

114. Tying this to Greenwald is unseemly

The bodies are barely cold. Gross

[msanthrope]

116. Mr. Greenwald had no problem blaming victims of terror......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705288

Did you critique him for that?

[whatchamacallit]

118. Yes, Greenwald made you do it

[msanthrope]

120. Hey--upthread you are avoiding my Bin Laden question. Tell us why you regret his death. nt

[whatchamacallit]

122. You know why

Until your cute twist we were discussing the manner of his death, not the fact of it. I don't give a shit about Bin Laden, I do however give a shit about the destruction of the constitution and the erosion our civil liberties in service of the endless terror war. Lame, even for you.

[msanthrope]

127. How in the heck did Bin Laden's death destroy the Constitution? nt

[whatchamacallit]

129. You're right

Damage to the constitution is a related issue, but not directly related to Bin Laden's death. This new era of terror "law" is a threat to our liberties though. Maybe John Yoo fans like you disagree.

[msanthrope]

131. I think John Yoo is an evil motherfucker. So was Bin Laden. nt

[msanthrope]

133. So when I wrote this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5964092

I was lying?

FYI---note who the poster is after me!!!

[whatchamacallit]

134. I was self deleting at the moment you were posting

Let me just say there have been many laws, not all just or worth defending.

[LittleBlue]

124. You could have posted this last week or next week

Instead, you just jumped on a pile of recently dead bodies and used them as a giant soapbox. It's no different than Bush standing opportunistically on the rubble of the WTC and giving a speech.

This is embarrassing. You're better than this.

Goodnight.

[stupidicus]

150. yep, that's all crystal clear

and indisputable.

and all the subject-changing, etc, won't change that

[Marr]

171. Seconded.

It's tasteless-- but hardly surprising from someone who would suggest that a Jewish man is a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5981413

[Bobbie Jo]

119. Wow, excellent OP, msanthrope.

K&R

Thank you for further exposing this charlatan.

[Rex]

121. The idea that any POTUS of America would have someone murdered over expressing their opinion

is beyond stupid. Greenwald is in a battle with Washington D.C. so of course he will say these silly things in hope of hurting our standing in the world. IMHO.

[msanthrope]

125. Well--it's part of the persecution schtick that helps Greenwald get clicks. That...and his general

level of batshit insane ODS.

[MrMickeysMom]

135. Killing a U.S. citizen for exercising free speech is good anger management, is it?

That is what I'm reading here. The many links you've peppered include descriptions of this first United States citizen to be assassinated (what a status!) after the okay by President Obama for the CIA to drone strike.

I see you have used Wikepedia's description of Awlaki.

I also re-read the articles by Greenwald, who I will not describe as anything more than a journalist who has done his job. Yeah… I "get it" that the usual pile-ons have swarmed Mr. Greenwald again. That's pretty usual.

So, it would appear that you, like Awlaki, have created a sermon of your own, nodding approval of having the CIA (who we trust so much) to have offed him because he's a piece of shit, and tying it into the horrible reporting of Greenwald. I see you would even provide criteria for what you thought was Awlaki's intent. And, you would rather a nation of laws say, "fuck it" instead of a nation of laws finding out what the facts are behind any of these fatwas. You would rather OFF these radicals than send them through the U.S. legal system. Hey, what's that worth now, anyway?

You know, I see where all the extra judicial stuff you describe outside a due process greatly adds to the mounds of propaganda. It's getting hard to tell who's lost their mind here lately.

I wouldn't waste a fucking line asking you for an apology for this piece you're written today, either. You just showed yourself real well.

Your post makes me ashamed to share a forum with you. I guess I could just put you on ignore, if I'm that upset. What I am right now is sick to my stomach from what you posted.

[msanthrope]

136. Wait a second---"finding out what the facts are behind any of these fatwas?"

Did you honestly write that line?

And why on earth would I write you an apology?

[treestar]

139. Awlaki himself decided not to use the US legal system

He can't turn his back on it and then be the victim when he doesn't get his day in court.

[MrMickeysMom]

140. You forgot...

I'm appreciative of your reference = _______________________________

[msanthrope]

142. "finding out what the facts are behind any of these fatwas"---could you please explain

what you meant by that??

[msanthrope]

155. Still waiting for you to answer me. nt

[bettyellen]

145. Yeah, let's not rush to judge these fatwas, LOL!

[msanthrope]

147. Thank you---I'm still trying to get an answer over this! Maybe the poster can clarify what the

frack they meant.

[msanthrope]

148. Still waiting for you to answer me. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

157. Try to be truthful...

… when you say you and others want an answer, because YOU were the only one who kept pinging me about something that should be clear… I told you this when you ceased to stop chasing (a.k.a. stalking) me on the other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6067172

Since you can't recognize the legality of any alleged fatwas, I'll give you Wikepedia's understanding:

A fatwā - Arabic: فتوى? plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى? - in the Islamic faith is the term for the legal opinion or learned interpretation that a qualified jurist or mufti can give on issues pertaining to the Islamic law.[1] The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwas) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[2]

An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as sharia law is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

If this isn't clear enough for you, too bad, because it should be. There was never going to be an opportunity for due process to prove the intent of a United States citizen who was assassinated. No one seems to be upset about the method of taking care of his criminality in what he did, because… wait for it…. THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS.

Get it? If you still don't, then educate yourself about the history about the founding constitutionality of laws our country was founded upon, given that you and I are both citizens.

[msanthrope]

158. Again, your stance on fatwas seems unclear. Are you saying that Awlaki did not issue a death threat

against Molly Norris? Are you disputing she does not appear on AQAP's most wanted list as referenced above?

As for "due process," Anwar Awlaki was given the due process he was entitled to. I can debate that with you quite well, since as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell you with a certainty that a non-custodial, active AQAP operative has no rights beyond kill or capture. Once he is in custody, he has the rights enumerated in BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH.

In short, he had due process.....you, however, are mistaken in law and in fact as to the nature of the due process he was entitled to.

[MrMickeysMom]

162. "In short, he had due process….."

Interesting choice of words in your interpretation. I'm done dancing with them. That last bit and your lawyering was all I had to hear on this subject. All I can say is that I'm glad you don't lawyer for me on my civil liberties.

My ignore list is there for reducing the amount of stomach turning on this forum, especially over the most precious superseding law we have, which is by the way of the French. I so did not appreciated your stalking me over the threads and then after all of that, coming up with THIS gem:

From YOUR quote to the devil's ear… "Anwar Awlaki was given the due process he was entitled to."

What the FUCK is THIS shit?

Never mind… rhetorical question, because you're out. Good-bye and good luck lawyering with THAT credo!

[msanthrope]

163. Yes..he had due process, and will happily debate you on that point. But again, please clarify

what you mean about Awlaki's fatwa against Molly Norris----

did he, or did he not, call for her death?

[Cha]

144. KICK!

[JI7]

151. kick , this backs up a lot of the stuff coming out today

[Cha]

153. This is more relevant than ever now..

"It was Anwar al-Awlaki who financed me."

arely http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6064545

[msanthrope]

154. Thank you......OMG......Awlaki financed them? And I want to direct you here---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026055227


Where a certain poster cannot say whether Awlaki is a terrorist or not.....

[zappaman]

156. Kick and rec.

[sheshe2]

176. Excellent Op msanthrope.

well done on every level

KNR!

[msanthrope]

181. Kick...for relevancy...nt

[msanthrope]

183. Kick--because Awlaki is being whitewashed.....nt

[uhnope]

184. k