I'll never believe that Sufis condone a death penalty for converting away from Islam, because I've been a Sufi for 30 years and there is not a shred of evidence, at least in western Sufism, of any such belief.

Also, Greenwald makes sweeping generalizations himself. I don't like Bill Maher, but he made far more sense here than usual.

Your video, Bill Maher destroyed by Glenn Greenwald on US interventionis, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

While Maher often does say things I agree with, he is in general a bit of a douche nozzle and very prone to I'll informed sweeping judgements that make him look rather silly (^ like this).

As far as what Mr. Greenwald said my response would be in so many words: "K'IN AYE DUDE!!" though if anything he doesn't go far enough.

The hegemony is subject to no boundaries, even those nations which actively reject it's institutions (Global market) are still bound and defined by it's existence so long as they share the same small patch of universe.

Wars exist to make money, in this day and age more than perhaps ever before. Every G.I. wounded, every round spent, every wound sutured, every school bombed.....someone in the club makes a profit..................

No matter how just & worthy your cause or evil your enemy, so long as one of these fuckers is bankrolling it, or their companies supplying it, you will loose in the long run. Every. Single. Time.

Unless your war is against the market and excessive privilege/wealth itself, your just screwing the rest of us over. I have big problems with Suni and Shi'ite Islam (the Sufi's seem ok) but blowing them up is very unlikely to improve the situation for anyone, doubly so at the end of a Lockheed-Martin missile!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Washington post also blasts Gregory for this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/23/david-gregory-whiffs-on-greenwald-question/

David Gregory’s logic has a cursory appeal. Why wouldn’t Greenwald have the courage to take on the issues swirling around his reporting? Shouldn’t a Sunday talk show host have the latitude to pose tough questions to another journalist?
Of course. Too bad, however, Gregory didn’t do that. Rather, he seeded his question with a veiled accusation of federal criminal wrongdoing, very much in the tradition of “how long have you been beating your wife.” To repeat the question: “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-vs-David-Gregory

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Your video, Glenn Greenwald vs. David Gregory, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Isn't this a dupe of

http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-vs-David-Gregory

?

@lantern53

i think the only thing manning did that could be considered "wrong" is the pure data dump he performed.

unlike snowden,who sifted and vetted the information and then forwarded the information to a journalist (glenn greenwald at the gaurdian),manning just dumped massive amounts of information to wikileaks.

but manning is also paying a high price and he is willing to pay that price.
so while i may disagree with his methodology i admire his courage to face the full force of the united states federal government.

its interesting that you find people who criticize the federal governments practices as being confused.
let us look at the definition of terrorism shall we?

from the FBI:“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

now the key word here is "unlawful".
which can be translated as being "when THEY perform acts of violence against a population it is "terrorism" but when WE perform acts of violence against a population it is "counter-terrorism" because WE made it lawful".

the arguments is about distinctions and it is flimsy when you question the validity coming from a government which performs drone strikes on a daily basis on brown people.

when a person straps a bomb to their chest and walks into a cafe and detonates themselves in a crowd they are a terrorist.
when the US government sends drone strikes and bombing runs to a village in yemen they are terrorists.

there is no distinction.
just because the government proclaims otherwise or your desire for the US to be standing on moral ground are irrelevant.

they are,by definition,both terrorists.

and when you consider the guidelines put forth by the nuremberg trials after WW2,in which it was the UNITED STATES government which implemented the majority of those guidelines both bush and obama and consequent participatory members of those administrations should be (and ARE in the international court of law) war criminals.

but the united states government conveniently ignores just about everything outside their own interest.even if that interest after the second world war was to diminish the practices our very own government engages in on a global scale every day.

it is the height of hypocrisy and reveals a moral bankruptcy that is staggering.
when they do it =terrorism
when we do it=counter-terrorism

i call bullshit.

Not sure if I understand the question, but if you are saying that Greenwald is being played like a chess piece by others, I gotta say "no". I wish we had many more Greenwalds, Mannings, Snowdens, and Assanges.

I realize that's more than one word, but I'm a rebel.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Greenwald is awesome - the Woodward and Bernstein of our times.

I also note the "social policy blowback". He's prevented from living in the US because the government won't recognise his same-sex marriage.

Though he is probably glad he's not in the US at the moment.