*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, June 27th, 2013 9:50am PDT - promote requested by original submitter not_blankfist.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lurgee.

Why does Glenn Greenwald hate America?

Reminds me of yet another ironic result of our "war against terror"... the gross ignorance, arrogance, blinders-on patriotism, and raging authoritarianist bend of a new species of rightie nutter that has slithered onto dry land since 9/11.

While "they hate us for a freedoms" is obviously ludicrous, I think you can't just blankly repeat Al Qaeda's statements without putting them in context.

Yes, US actions whether through military action, sanctions or otherwise have resulted in numerous deaths, however you can't state that without highlighting the overwhelming hypocrisy of Al Qaeda, who's terrorism overwhelmingly murders Muslims over the US or anyone else in the West for purported crimes such as a heresy and collaboration with the West.

Interference in Saudi Arabia, again in the context of Al Qaeda's intent, what they're really opposed to is military might that threatens their own insurgency or better equips the authoritarian government in Saudi Arabia to fight them with modern arms.

Really? So if Iran had a military base in the US would it just be about the threat to the US governments power or would there be a principle of non-interference, autonomy and, I hate to say it, national pride at stake?

Besides, it is now impossible to differentiate Al Queda from the exclusive entity it was pre-911 to the inclusive, against-the-West-and-you're-in animal it has become. Until 2003-4 it had no stance on Israel until it needed to recruit more people and used it as propaganda to get more people on board. With Saudi Arabia it had very achievable and pragmatic demands pre-911- get US forces out. In 2007 all but 20-40 troops exited. I feel that even with the complete withdrawal AQ would still find something else to protest in order to warrant their actions.

Because he has principles that trump national pride. To be proud of something you not only have to have done something to be proud of but also proven why you deserve to share in that pride other than exiting the right vagina at the right time and place. If, on the other hand, you take pride without due participation you must also accept the shame. Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter.

You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades.

Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda. There are legitimate grievances that we could address and it would basically destroy Al Qaedas support, but we don't because it's counter to what the people with the money want us to do.

Eisenhower asked the same question to his advisers in the 1950s, something like "Why is their a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East." His advisers came back with the facts, they don't like us because we support horrible dictators that keep a boot to their neck constantly. The continued that it's correct, we should be doing this in order to control them.

There's facts but you can't talk about them much, people get really upset and call you a traitor. Like in this very comment section. Whatever the US does it's correct regardless of intention or outcome, Patriotism is stupid.

Hatred sort of implies that it's irrational. There are many things that America has done that deserves the reasoned hatred of many.

@Kofi / @Yogi

I agree with what you are both saying. I'm sure you guys are aware of the origins of Al Qaeda both in the context of (1) their Mujahideen origins in Afghanistan propped up by the US against their Soviets and (2) their inception during the radicalisation of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt through the government's imprisonment and torture campaign while supported by the US.

However, by the time of 9/11, I'd argue Al Qaeda was long detached from any of its original goals (partly as a result of US actions that radicalised them) and had lost its idealism and was an organisation seeking power and global recognition.

That's also why I think the situation visa vi the US/Middle East has destabilised to a point that even were the US to withdraw from its military bases, propping up of dictators and disentangle itself from Israel then Al Qaeda would still target the US simply because those actions have replaced its initial aims and have become its raison d'etre.

That's not to say the US shouldn't get out of the Middle East because continued presence in this way is creating more groups that grow from local conflicts to global war with the US but I'm more saying, that it would be naive to expect organisations such as Al Qaeda to dissapear were the US to do this. Their existence is predicated on opposition to the US and were the US to disengage, they would simply manufacture reasons to continue their own global jihad. It's a bit of a Catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't at this point.

Yeah, the "they hate us because of our freedom" line was the sort insultingly stupid pandering thing that George Bush favored. It didn't surprise me that he said it, what was disappointing was that the media was spineless enough to just go along with it.

What never got expressed is that our actions against other nations were still atrocious, even if the aggrieved peoples include a small number of suicidal zealots. We pissed off entire nations; good people, bad people, all of them had an adequate reason to hate us.

Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.

I agree with you @RedSky It has gone beyond the point of no return. I think Glen is effective in offering a correct diagnosis and a prevention for future incidents rather than a cure for this one.

@bcglorf You kind of lost it on the 2nd post. There's a lot of misinformation used there. Your first post is relevant insofar as Glenn is lying by omission. However, don't confuse omission for tacit endorsement. You are right that these are things that some people do and all people should know but sadly they don't. View this merely as a stepping stone towards greater acceptance of the facts; facts that a hell of a lot of Americans refuse to admit. So much so that it does not even enter the debate before "Why do you hate America" is thrown.

Did someone say America wasn't perfect? Holy cow!!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED to discover that a country has not been a utopia since the day it was founded!!!
Most of the things America did wrong was done by the gov't, which most of you people seem to adore, especially since Obama has been in charge. Yet Obama continues the same policies of Bush, except for all the apologies.
Hello drones! (that has a double meaning)

@Kofi, If your gonna state that I'm using misinformation I'd appreciate telling me specifically where. I'll not claim to perfection, but I do my best to not knowingly miss state facts and if you think I have I'd like to clear it up one way or another.

@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

they hate us cause killing brown people is easy and profitable

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

Great post - good discussion.

Maybe they also hate us for our hypocrisy. Supporting autocratic leaders like Saddam and Mubarak with money and weapons - while spouting the virtues of democracy. That certainly bugs the shit out of me.

George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Ron Paul would like to see the US disentagle from foreign entanglements - close bases, pull back troops, stop military support.

At first, I say Yes! Then I think about it ... Nature abhors a vacuum. In a unipolar world, what happens when the pole removes itself from the game?

Rwanda is what happens. Clinton is still riding the great approval ratings for his foreign policy, including his steadfast refusal to meddle in Rwanda throughout the duration of the genocide there.

And yes, the hypocrisy is bad, the horrific evil of America's own sociopaths like Kissinger is even worse. We just need to recognize the difference between turning Cambodia into a parking lot to prove to the Ruskies that we have 'resolve' and removing someone like Saddam from power.

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

My response to the Rwanda point is that you can't have it both ways. A mission to Rwanda would never have been purely humanitarian. There would have been "boots on the ground" there. Fire-fights, young American soldiers dying on TV. You're either intervening internationally or you're not.

I agree 100% with you on that. I personally take the position that ALL nations that are signatories to the international convention on genocide were obligated to intervene in Rwanda and the universal failure of all of them to do so is as frightening to me as the war crimes nation states commit to advance themselves.

Guaranteed though that if Clinton, or any other national leader, had sent boots into Rwanda during the genocide the crowd of folks like Greenwald and Chomsky would be here today explaining how intervention caused the Rwandan genocide...