highlights of bigoted barbarian bombast from the uncommon, undreary Glenn Greenwald!

Glenn Greenwald has written yet another post (as if we needed more) castigating Glenn Reynolds as a stupid bigot.

Surprise.

But lest anyone get the idea that Greenwald is obsessed with Reynolds (heaven forefend!), Greenwald asssures us that Reynolds is mainly being "highlighted" because he is so "common."

Reynolds is highlighted here not because he's unique but because he's so drearily common.

A commoner in our midst? As a queen who actually happened to be a monarch once put it,

"We are not amused!"

What especially fascinates me is not so much that Greenwald would call anyone drearily common, but that topping his list of complaints is an objection to characterizing barbarian activities as barbaric:

University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, today, echoing so many by lamenting the compulsive violence of Muslims:

It's hard to keep track of all the barbaric behavior emanating from that part of the world.

Not that it would matter to Greenwald, but had he clicked on the link he'd have seen that Reynolds had just quoted from a reader's email discussing whether certain beheadings were a reaction to the Koran burning by the Florida crackpot or whether the Mazar-i-Sharif beheadings had been erroneously conflated with the riots in Kandahar. The point being that it is very difficult to keep track of the barbaric behavior in that part of the world. Except Greenwald's objection does not involve whether such barbarianism can be kept track of; he makes it quite clear his objection is to using the word "barbaric" or "barbarian" to characterize Muslims -- a word he highlights in bold. 

It's a dishonest attempt to have Glenn Reynolds say that the reason "Muslims" should be nuked, invaded, tortured, occupied, murdered, put in cages for life without due process, and reduced to rubble is simply this:

Because Muslims are so prone to violence and barbarism!

Why is the word highlighted in bold? Not one of the five Instapundit posts Greenwald cites even uses the word "Muslim." (One of them involved North Koreans; and most were speculations about various responses to terrorism as opposed to advocacy.)

Yet after citing them, Greenwald characterizes Reynolds' position as this:

Boy, those primitive, dirty, lowly Muslims sure do have a bizarre, unique cultural compulsion toward violence and barbarism, don't they?

Yes, especially those sinister Commie Muslims in North Korea, who worship the noted Salafist cleric Kim Jong Il!

Where does Greenwald get the word "Muslim"? His imagination? Is that why he has to put it in bold?

The more I thought about it, the more Greenwald's objection to Glenn's use of the word "barbarian" fascinated me, so I thought I'd take a look at recent posts in which Glenn condemns barbarian behavior.

While every one certainly involved barbaric behavior, not one attributed barbarianism to Islam. 

So I find myself wondering something. If we look at the behavior involved, it is by any standard barbaric. Can we at least agree on that?

Or can't we?

Does Greenwald think it is not barbaric to kill UN workers to protest the free speech activities of an American crackpot?

BARBARIANS: Afghan mob kills at least 12 UN workers in protest over Terry Jones's Koran-burning.

If that isn't barbarianism, what is?

Moving on, does Greenwald think it is not barbaric to charge a 14 year old girl who had been raped with adultery, and then lash her to death?

BARBARIANS: Only 14, Bangladeshi girl charged with adultery was lashed to death.

Does Greenwald think it is not barbaric for thuggish police to drag female protestors away and force them to undergo so-called "virginity tests"?

BARBARIANS: Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests.'

Does Greenwald think it is not barbaric for an angry mob to beat and humiliate Christian women on frivolous blasphemy charges?

BARBARIANS: "Two Christian Women Were Beaten and Publicly Humiliated by an Angry Mob in Pakistan Over Apparently Frivolous Blasphemy Allegations."

What gives here? I think all of the behavior above is barbaric. Shockingly so. And I think the people involved are barbarians, as well as stupid bigots.

Does that mean I atttributed their barbarism to Islam? How?

But obviously, Greenwald thinks that condemning barbarians who are Muslims is the same thing as saying that Muslims are barbarians. But since Glenn never said that, he has to read the word in. And highlight it in bold!

In his mind, if you condemn barbarianism you become a stupid bigot.

Actually, I think those who condemn the condemnation of barbarianism are the ones who are bigoted and stupid. They are enabling barbarianism.

But perhaps they think civilization is dreary and common. And bigoted, of course.

I think the opposite is true.

However, attacking civilization has become too dreary and too common.

UPDATE: Many thanks to the good Glenn for the link, and a warm welcome to all.

Comments invited -- even from they that are not amused!
posted by Eric on 04.06.11 at 11:41 AM










Comments

He counts on his readers not clicking his links.

That's the point.

Not that the puppy blender did anything wrong, but that Gleen(s) can have his (their?) Two Minutes Hate using his (their?) favorite Emmanuel Goldstein.

I try not to impute motives unless there's a clear and definite pattern, in this case I'd say that's a very likely explanation.

Veeshir   ·  April 6, 2011 2:37 PM

America has been at war (off and on) with Islamic barbarians since 1794 (perhaps earlier). "Shores of Tripoli" ring a bell?

I'd love to see a plan for ending this barbarism.

At least Bush had a plan. Bring self government to the barbarian states. Maybe it wasn't a good plan. Maybe it wasn't useful in all places. But it was a plan (grand strategy actually).

So where is the current administration's plan? And if they are following the Bush plan why no credit where due?

What ever happened to "politics ends at the waters edge"?

M. Simon   ·  April 6, 2011 6:37 PM

I think Glenn Greenwald is a fantastic blogger, and I object to this criticisms! You just know that Instapundit is a racist and a bigot because he is not a leftist!

Shmen Shmeenwald   ·  April 9, 2011 6:11 PM

Wow. Awesome sauce. Point. Set. Match.

Blaze   ·  April 9, 2011 6:17 PM

I see by researching the internet that Mr. Greenwald has been published. Have any of you been published?

Good day sir!

Mr. Pink   ·  April 9, 2011 6:30 PM

Glenn Sockpuppet Greenwald is consumed by his own awesomeness. Since there are still a few who won't accept the wisdom he has inscribed with fire on stone tablets, he must excoriate all who disagree with his magnificentness.

I'm truly sorry that he has to stoop with his 400 IQ to correcting the various troglodytes on the Right [or at least non-Left] in the US.

JorgXMcKie   ·  April 9, 2011 6:31 PM

I assure you that Glenn Reynolds is smarter than Glenn Greenwald. Hopefully, people like Reynolds will become more common.

DADvocate   ·  April 9, 2011 6:34 PM

Why not attribute those barbaric acts that Islam calls for to Islam? There are plenty of barbaric acts that Islam specifically instructs it's followers to do. That Muslims don't all do those acts is no credit to Islam.

Brian Macker   ·  April 9, 2011 6:41 PM

Under Islamic law, if you use a verbal formula in front of Muslim witnesses, this makes you a Muslim. Now if you decide you made a mistake and renounce Islam, under Islamic law is permissible to kill you. Does Islam seem a little barbaric?

Rick   ·  April 9, 2011 6:44 PM

You've all overlooked the obvious. Glenn Greenwald objects to negative references to barbaric behavior because he is, in fact, a barbarian.

Although in all cases, "savage" is the more correct term.

John W.   ·  April 9, 2011 7:15 PM

Greenwald hates our black president. That's what it's all about- racism pure and simple.

Lionel Manboobs   ·  April 9, 2011 7:59 PM

I really wish people would stop making the argument that Islam is not barbaric and that those who adhere most faithfully to its tenets will not engage in barbarism. It is getting old and it is simply wrong. Mohammed raped, enslaved and murdered his way across the middle east and he spread his religion by the sword. His followers are doing the same.

Pretending otherwise is how we came to be where we are. To the extent Muslims do not take their religion seriously enough to practice it properly as is the case with most American Muslims then we can get along. When they start following the example and teachings of their prophet and understand the concept of abrogation where the later, more violent passages take supremacy over the earlier, more peaceful ones then there is no place for them in the civilized world.

This is what the Arab world needs to hear more than anything else. They won't like it but there is no substitute for making them understand it by any means necessary. Simply put, no decent or civilized person can worship Mohammed as Mohammed wished to be worshiped.

Polybius   ·  April 9, 2011 8:52 PM

The saddest thing is that there are supposedly civilized people that agree with the Gleens...

flicka47   ·  April 9, 2011 10:01 PM

DADvocate, a room temperature dead mackerel is smarter than Greenwald.

SDN   ·  April 10, 2011 1:24 AM

What drives Greenwald, and other "progressives" like him, is shame and hatred of their own western roots, mostly due to their hatred of historic western colonialism, slavery (especially that which existed in the US), and the success of western civilization (which they think comes at the expense of non-western civilizations).

To these "progressives," any civilization that challenges the West is to be admired. Of course they know damn well about the barbaric aspects of Moslem culture, and deep down they detest them. But their shame and hatred of the West trumps that revulsion, so they build cognitive and rhetorical structures to hide them, so they can continue their anti-western tirades.

What we have in Greenwald's post is a simple mistake, a wardrobe failure. Those structures slipped, and out popped the truth. It is a truth which Greenwald knows damn well, and which he can not abide.

JonathanInTelAviv   ·  April 10, 2011 2:30 AM

Maybe I'm confused, but why are you concerned with what this guy says? It is apparent to me that his opinions are invalid and nobody should even bother to read him. By responding, you simply validate his writings and encourage his continued irrationality. Does anyone actually pay attention to Cindy Sheehan anymore? No. Her statements were foolish so no one listens anymore. Do the same to this guy and he will eventually go away.

Robin   ·  April 10, 2011 8:57 AM

Interesting comments, and I apologize to those who may have tried to leave them but couldn't. Massive, uncontrollable spamming is messing up the blog bigtime, and I am working on it.

Please note that I did not say that Muhammad or his followers are not barbarians or that they are, and even though I don't think it is an "all are" or "none are" situation, that was not the point of this post -- which was simply to take issue with Greenwald putting words in Glenn Reynolds' mouth.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 10, 2011 9:33 AM

Has anyone actually seen Cindy Sheehan and GG in the same room together?

WJ   ·  April 10, 2011 11:38 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits