He was tweeting in response to this Op Ed in the Guardian, the main takeaway of which is:
The kidnap of the estimated 270 girls is shameful, sickening and horrifying. It is every condemnatory adjective we have, as is Nigeria's embarrassing failure to take any action to save them.
As western feminists, we have a duty to stand in solidarity with these girls, their mothers, and their fathers. I don't know anyone who would fail to condemn these atrocities, but there is perhaps a small reluctance to get involved, for fear of interfering, for appropriating the struggles of others, or for failing to understand the relevant cultural and religious politics. ...
It is my view that there is a case for military assistance, but on a more basic level, there are things that we can do to support those who are begging for help. The British feminist movement has immense social media clout. We can all follow the Facebook group Bring Back Our Girls and use the hashtag. We can write to our world leaders, demanding that they offer assistance to rescue the girls. We can organise rallies and marches locally, as many others already have. We can support and listen to the Nigerian community here in the UK.
Greenwald responded:
The ability to ignore virtually all history when advocating for The Next Western Intervention is as impressive as it is horrifying
So what the heck do you think he meant? This woman's call to do something (she personally thought some intervention might be called for, but advised other things to do, like writing and marching) is apparently, in GG's mind, as "horrifying" as the kidnap of the 270 girls because it ignores "virtually all history" regarding "Intervention."
What the heck does he mean by all of history? That there has never been a successful intervention mission? No rescue at Entebbe? No successful end to a hostage crisis? No rescuing ships taken by pirates? Is GG THAT effing big of a non-interventionist, of the Ron Paul variety, that he can't even fathom the idea of a special mission to rescue 270 little girls? That's kind of whack.
I'm not arguing for such a mission--it all depends on whether it could accomplish the goal or not. But nobody is talking about starting World War III here. GG sounds just like a mean old hyperbolic crank.
But what do YOU think he meant? To me, it's quite straightforward. I'd love to hear your excuse for this overreaction.
= new reply since forum marked as read