Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 03:55 PM Jan 2015

Molly Norris, American Cartoonist and Victim of Terror, and Glenn Greenwald. [View all]

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.
184 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Greenwald's agenda and the truth are two distinct things. eom MohRokTah Jan 2015 #1
I just took a look at French media....AQAP might be behind the shooting..Awlaki's old crew... msanthrope Jan 2015 #4
Good stuff...kick Blue_Tires Jan 2015 #2
oh sure nt grasswire Jan 2015 #28
Par for the course for that guy. zappaman Jan 2015 #3
You know, I was criticized for calling out Greenwald's representation of Nazis in civil msanthrope Jan 2015 #8
"what political agenda allows for this?" No real agenda. uhnope Jan 2015 #44
BOOM! There it is! Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #174
my god, there's something really wrong with Greenwald uhnope Jan 2015 #175
K & R. n/t FSogol Jan 2015 #5
It's like Greenwald is half asleep when he composes his stuff. randome Jan 2015 #6
He's not half-asleep---he counts on his readership to be. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #9
No opportunity too tasteless to thrash Greenwald eh? whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #7
Indeed....how horrible of me not to take GG's reputation into account before correctly msanthrope Jan 2015 #10
Well if ibtimes says so... whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #11
Did they take over the The Wire, too...my source in the OP which reported the hit list in 2013? msanthrope Jan 2015 #13
I'm suggesting your interest in the truth whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #15
I will happily debate the truth with you....is there a single fact I've presented you take issue msanthrope Jan 2015 #19
My critique whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #22
Indeed....I'm still waiting for your critique. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #46
I thought it was about "truth". cheapdate Jan 2015 #152
what exactly do you contend is untrue in anything she has written here? bettyellen Jan 2015 #20
It's the frenzied interpretive dance with facts I take issue with. n/t whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #23
+1 bahrbearian Jan 2015 #40
Are you sure? Or do you take issue with my description of the 9/11 hijackers? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #64
What is your description? whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #65
In my OP. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #67
I see what you called al-Awlaki whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #70
Do you believe they exist? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #73
Of course whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #74
Just wondering. You seem to have previously described them as "woo." msanthrope Jan 2015 #77
Haha I get what you're trying to do whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #82
Ah....so what fact of mine do you dispute? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #83
To start with whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #87
First, I never contented that we know all we need to know. I think that every single bit of msanthrope Jan 2015 #88
Again, it's an opinion, not a fact whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #89
It absolutely is a fact. As a non-custodial member of AQAP, actively engaged in terror, he was msanthrope Jan 2015 #91
This is an old Atlantic article that I'll leave for DUers whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #96
Hey--when GG decided to blame Canada for its terrorist shooting a few months ago, did you msanthrope Jan 2015 #99
It also rightly questions the bad laws and opinions whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #101
Yeah...I'm really good with how the likes of Bin Laden left the earth. How about you? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #105
I'm not good with it at all whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #106
Yeah.....just not seeing the downside to Bin Laden's death. Do tell. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #107
He doesn't get to tell his side of the story in a court of law. Octafish Jan 2015 #159
So President Obama hushed up Bin Laden to save the Bushes??? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #160
No, that's what you wrote. Octafish Jan 2015 #161
LOL! zappaman Jan 2015 #164
What do you know! Octafish Jan 2015 #165
Right? zappaman Jan 2015 #166
I thought Democrats cared about Civil Rights, even those with whom they disagree? Octafish Jan 2015 #167
"With whom they disagree"? zappaman Jan 2015 #168
Is your ignorance intentional, zappaman? Octafish Jan 2015 #169
When it comes to "intentional ignorance", I certainly bow to your expertise. zappaman Jan 2015 #170
To quote me requires you write ''ignorance intentional,'' zappaman. Octafish Jan 2015 #172
Lol! zappaman Jan 2015 #173
It indicates what you know about journalism and research, zappaman. Octafish Jan 2015 #178
I know not to defend anti-Semites.... zappaman Jan 2015 #179
Rather defend extrajudicial killing? nt elias49 Jan 2015 #182
LOL, so you can't defend your accusation. Noted. bettyellen Jan 2015 #69
oh please. Anyone reading your posts can see you are projecting uhnope Jan 2015 #47
That's about as shameless an attempt to derail a thread I've ever seen Number23 Jan 2015 #68
interesting. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #180
If you took Greenwald's reputation into accout, your post would have been more scathing. George II Jan 2015 #43
I would think so too. The only one damaging arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #58
Well, any excuse to exploit the dead, I suppose Scootaloo Jan 2015 #108
When GG blamed Canada for its terror attack that killed a reservist, did you tell him that? msanthrope Jan 2015 #109
I'm talking about you, msanthrope, and your exploitation of murder Scootaloo Jan 2015 #110
Oh right--weren't you on that thread, defending Mr. Greenwald? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #115
I was pointing out the idiocy of several posters and their selective reading ability Scootaloo Jan 2015 #123
Which posters were idiots? You seem to have a hypocritical stance--GG can talk about msanthrope Jan 2015 #126
^^^ grasswire Jan 2015 #27
These OPs are useful to me, in that I can watch who "K&R's" them Maedhros Jan 2015 #45
I've never recommended a thread before. OilemFirchen Jan 2015 #55
Interesting - I too have NEVER done so but just did... George II Jan 2015 #71
Why you believe your ignore list Jeff Rosenzweig Jan 2015 #56
I'll save you a bit of time. I just Rec'd the OP, so please ... 11 Bravo Jan 2015 #72
And those supporting murder apologist Glenn Greenwald? Ikonoklast Jan 2015 #80
I'm crushed! greatauntoftriplets Jan 2015 #84
Let me help you. K&R Andy823 Jan 2015 #94
Goody. Am I on your ignore list? I have no time for people who fail to use citations and research. Hekate Jan 2015 #112
I stand with msanthrope and the facts. great white snark Jan 2015 #113
Thank you. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #146
Put me on ignore leftynyc Jan 2015 #177
Thank you for the research, msanthrope. That used to count for something here. Hekate Jan 2015 #12
i've been talking about Molly Norris on this site for a few years now....anytime someone posts msanthrope Jan 2015 #17
Well done! I could not agree more with your points... Spazito Jan 2015 #14
K&R! Good research. Greenwald occasionally says something sensible. MineralMan Jan 2015 #18
I might quibble with you as to Greenwald saying something sensible... Spazito Jan 2015 #24
I did mean it for the OP, yes. My error. MineralMan Jan 2015 #30
Thanks, leaving it does allow more continuity n/t Spazito Jan 2015 #34
The GG'S reminds me of the Libertarian ilk... arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #60
Yep, his Libertarian roots run deep... Spazito Jan 2015 #62
That's the impression he has always left me with. arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #78
I remember when Rand Paul was challenged on his comments re the Civil Rights Act... Spazito Jan 2015 #81
Peas in a pod, if you ask me. nt arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #85
If you did a Venn of the two types you are describing, one circle red, one blue, it would be msanthrope Jan 2015 #26
Yes. I think you're correct. MineralMan Jan 2015 #32
I truly wonder why someone who has accused the President of killing a terrorist for their msanthrope Jan 2015 #21
I wonder why DUers continue to consider his screeds acceptable even lauditory... Spazito Jan 2015 #25
Greenwald is very like Newt Gingrich---he sounds like what a smart person is supposed msanthrope Jan 2015 #29
Greenwald's thin skin when it comes to criticism mirrors Limbaugh's as well... Spazito Jan 2015 #31
He is very thin-skinned. You can tell from both the vitriol, and the screeds he produces in defense msanthrope Jan 2015 #35
I have often thought the same... Spazito Jan 2015 #38
Yes. I remember the time I referred to him as a libertarian and a MineralMan Jan 2015 #48
He's gotta get a thesaurus, or some new material. He beat that term to death in one of his books msanthrope Jan 2015 #57
Greenwald is an unstable narcissist uhnope Jan 2015 #49
Greenwald is very much like Newt Gingrich. Each asjr Jan 2015 #41
This is one of the best posts I've read at DU in a long, long time... SidDithers Jan 2015 #16
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #33
+ a googol whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #37
Apparently not everyone agrees with your praise. MineralMan Jan 2015 #50
And on a day when DU is in an uproar over freedom of expression whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #53
Maedhros is so full of freedom of expression s/he made a big deal about who KittyWampus Jan 2015 #98
LOL, good point! Spazito Jan 2015 #111
You mean that Rajib Karim was unlawfully convicted? The emails between him and Awlaki, presented in msanthrope Jan 2015 #42
That poster won't be able to reply to you. MineralMan Jan 2015 #52
That is a wonderful portmanteau of "chide" and "hidden." I am going to use it. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #59
I've used that for years. I think of MineralMan Jan 2015 #117
Great post, thanks. Greenwald is a self serving, duplicitous piece of garbage George II Jan 2015 #36
K & R SunSeeker Jan 2015 #39
KR uhnope Jan 2015 #51
So you support summarily executing American citizens with no due process? alarimer Jan 2015 #54
I contend that Mr. Awlaki had plenty of due process, and would be more than happy to debate that msanthrope Jan 2015 #61
"You make me sick".. Oooops, your words just boomeranged! Cha Jan 2015 #75
there is a lot of dishonesty when these things are brought up JI7 Jan 2015 #63
UNREC CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #66
indeed, when the first thought in the aftermath of such a tragedy stupidicus Jan 2015 #76
What makes you think Greenwald isn't here? MM upthread described GG linking to one of his posts. msanthrope Jan 2015 #79
plenty stupidicus Jan 2015 #90
So when GG used the tragedy of shootings in Canada to say they had it coming..... msanthrope Jan 2015 #92
Geez, I totally missed that thread... Spazito Jan 2015 #95
Note the hypocrisy....Glenn can blame terrorism on the victims, but I'm the bad person msanthrope Jan 2015 #97
Yep, hypocrisy abounds, imo, among those who would defend the indefensible... Spazito Jan 2015 #102
that's meaningless garbage stupidicus Jan 2015 #103
Wait- we can't critique Greenwald unless he's here to defend himself? Does that logic apply KittyWampus Jan 2015 #100
Kitty..I have no doubt GG is here....google "Greenwald" and "sock puppet" and you will read the most msanthrope Jan 2015 #104
Yes but according to the "logic" of previous poster we can't critique anyone unless they are here. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #128
Note that not a single one of them has provided a dispute of facts? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #130
I noticed that! Spazito Jan 2015 #138
Oh, that has been WELL noted. As well as the attacks on Cali_Dem for daring to post Greenwald's Number23 Jan 2015 #141
You know, for a long time, blue links were eschewed. I think when you are dealing with GG..... msanthrope Jan 2015 #143
good grief stupidicus Jan 2015 #149
What an interesting, thought provoking treestar Jan 2015 #137
Thank you for once again exposing the ODS of GG that is so entrenched it makes him Cha Jan 2015 #86
Thank you, friend. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #93
Tying this to Greenwald is unseemly LittleBlue Jan 2015 #114
Mr. Greenwald had no problem blaming victims of terror...... msanthrope Jan 2015 #116
Yes, Greenwald made you do it whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #118
Hey--upthread you are avoiding my Bin Laden question. Tell us why you regret his death. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #120
You know why whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #122
How in the heck did Bin Laden's death destroy the Constitution? nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #127
You're right whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #129
I think John Yoo is an evil motherfucker. So was Bin Laden. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #131
This message was self-deleted by its author whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #132
So when I wrote this.... msanthrope Jan 2015 #133
I was self deleting at the moment you were posting whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #134
You could have posted this last week or next week LittleBlue Jan 2015 #124
yep, that's all crystal clear stupidicus Jan 2015 #150
Seconded. Marr Jan 2015 #171
Wow, excellent OP, msanthrope. Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #119
The idea that any POTUS of America would have someone murdered over expressing their opinion Rex Jan 2015 #121
Well--it's part of the persecution schtick that helps Greenwald get clicks. That...and his general msanthrope Jan 2015 #125
Killing a U.S. citizen for exercising free speech is good anger management, is it? MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #135
Wait a second---"finding out what the facts are behind any of these fatwas?" msanthrope Jan 2015 #136
Awlaki himself decided not to use the US legal system treestar Jan 2015 #139
You forgot... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #140
"finding out what the facts are behind any of these fatwas"---could you please explain msanthrope Jan 2015 #142
Still waiting for you to answer me. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #155
Yeah, let's not rush to judge these fatwas, LOL! bettyellen Jan 2015 #145
Thank you---I'm still trying to get an answer over this! Maybe the poster can clarify what the msanthrope Jan 2015 #147
Still waiting for you to answer me. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #148
Try to be truthful... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #157
Again, your stance on fatwas seems unclear. Are you saying that Awlaki did not issue a death threat msanthrope Jan 2015 #158
"In short, he had due process….." MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #162
Yes..he had due process, and will happily debate you on that point. But again, please clarify msanthrope Jan 2015 #163
KICK! Cha Jan 2015 #144
kick , this backs up a lot of the stuff coming out today JI7 Jan 2015 #151
This is more relevant than ever now.. Cha Jan 2015 #153
Thank you......OMG......Awlaki financed them? And I want to direct you here--- msanthrope Jan 2015 #154
Kick and rec. zappaman Jan 2015 #156
Excellent Op msanthrope. sheshe2 Jan 2015 #176
Kick...for relevancy...nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #181
Kick--because Awlaki is being whitewashed.....nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #183
k uhnope Jan 2015 #184
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Molly Norris, American Ca...