Glenn Greenwald on the London killing.

[Ender]

Greenwald is on the money and has my total respect.

He is one of the few journalists that goes for the truth, no matter how costly it might be to himself; he is the progressive version of Ben Swann.

If you keep up with both of these guys, the truth becomes pretty obvious.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Second, despite the self-serving bewilderment that is typically expressed whenever western nations are the targets rather than perpetrators of violence - why would anyone possibly be so monstrous and savage as to want to attack us this way? - the answer is actually well-known and well-documented. As explained by the CIA ("blowback"), the Pentagon (they "do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies"), former CIA agents ("we could try invading, occupying and droning Muslim countries a little less, and see if that helps. Maybe prop up fewer corrupt and tyrannical Muslim regimes")

I don't really agree with the blowback definition here. He never suffered any of the grievances mentioned - he was born and raised in England and given all the rights that all Englishmen have. Why would he want to attack his native country?

spending decades bombing, invading, occupying, droning, interfering in, imposing tyranny on, and creating lawless prisons in other countries generates intense anti-American and anti-western rage (for obvious reasons) and ensures that those western nations will be attacked as well.

I want to examine this part because it would seem to me that this article which is largely being praised here actually goes against the majority view. AF you believe in "9/11 truth" right? I believe most here do. I don't remember a single violent act committed by a Muslim on Western soil that hasn't had many (likely most) forum members claim it was a false flag.

So when Greenwald says "ensures that those western nations will be attacked" you disagree with him right? We have had no blowback or acts of Muslim violence on American soil. Have we? When?

 

[BlackTerrel]

Hmmm. That's only the second time that I can remember that the entire comment section has been deleted from a GG article.

This is for legal reasons. The comment sections on those articles had lots of anti-Islam comments which is illegal under English law (posts attacking Jews, blacks, Asians etc..) are also illegal.

There have already been a number of people arrested for anti-Muslim posts in the wake of this event

http://www.examiner.com/article/ant...ch-murder-of-british-soldier-leads-to-arrests

 

[BlackTerrel]

So when Greenwald says "ensures that those western nations will be attacked" you disagree with him right? We have had no blowback or acts of Muslim violence on American soil. Have we? When?

Bump. Is Greenwald right or wrong on this? What are the examples of blowback that Greenwald describes?

 

[angelatc]

Bump. Is Greenwald right or wrong on this? What are the examples of blowback that Greenwald describes?

Boston.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Boston.

Except many here (most?) think that was a false flag. Why aren't those people calling out Greenwald? He must be wrong if these are false flags right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Except many here (most?) think that was a false flag. Why aren't those people calling out Greenwald? He must be wrong if these are false flags right?

Because it is much more nuanced than that.

There have been a number of "jihadist" attacks, Ft. Hood, Boston, that incident in Detroit, the "shoe bomber", the "underwear bomber", just off the top of my head.

Some are "real" attacks, some are guided and assisted by the FedCoats, and some are outright fabrications by the FedCoats.

Regardless of if he is right or wrong on the source, he is spot on the result.

As his heroic efforts to bring Ed Snowden's information to light clearly shows.

Regardless of what he may think of blowback or false flags, he had my support before and he most certainly does now.

Nor does it change the underlying fact that, even if ALL those "attacks" were real and organic jihadist terror, I stand almost zero chance of being killed or injured by them.

I stand an eight to ten times greater chance to be killed by law enforcement.

That number would be substantially higher if I were a black man, like you.

 

[Warlord]

Except many here (most?) think that was a false flag. Why aren't those people calling out Greenwald? He must be wrong if these are false flags right?

Warlord has called him out plenty of times. Probably in this very thread. But he's still a good journalist.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Because it is much more nuanced than that.

There have been a number of "jihadist" attacks, Ft. Hood, Boston, that incident in Detroit, the "shoe bomber", the "underwear bomber", just off the top of my head.

Some are "real" attacks, some are guided and assisted by the FedCoats, and some are outright fabrications by the FedCoats.

Which ones are real attacks? I don't remember a single time when a Muslim was accused of violence where either a majority or a loud minority here haven't said it was obviously a false flag

Regardless of if he is right or wrong on the source, he is spot on the result.

He is claiming the result is obvious. He is saying there is no doubt that Muslims will attack Westerners in the UK and US due to our actions. That is the entire premise of the article you posted.

Many here must think he is wrong. Muslims NEVER attack us. Our foreign policy does not create terrorists.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Warlord has called him out plenty of times. Probably in this very thread. But he's still a good journalist.

Warlord has not demonstrated anywhere in this thread if Greenwald was inaccurate or unjudiciou. Ed is still not clear what GG was called out for exactly lol

 

[Warlord]

Warlord has not demonstrated anywhere in this thread if Greenwald was inaccurate or unjudiciou. Ed is still not clear what GG was called out for exactly lol

1st page of this very thread Warlord said "not that informative". Perhaps ED should learn to read

 

[Warlord]

ED / BT :

Check out these posts on GG:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ing-programs&p=5063393&viewfull=1#post5063393

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ions-*video*&p=5065147&viewfull=1#post5065147

Warlord's cousin weighed in (Greewald doesn't like Thatcher but he does)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-on-Thatcher&p=4964717&viewfull=1#post4964717

There's loads of criticism although notice it's polite. He's still one of the few decent journalists around speaking truth to power so that's commendable regardless of his views/theories.

He's really good destroying the MSM talking heads. He's obviously so much smarter.