6 ms·

Greenwald has been an activist for years. I recall him finding the most tenuous of reasons to defend Assad and Putin's conduct in Syria. It kept falling apart

Greenwald has been an activist for years. I recall him finding the most tenuous of reasons to defend Assad and Putin's conduct in Syria. It kept falling apart as the regime kept conducting further chemical weapons attacks. Everything could be dismissed as some grand imperialist plot against Assad. The goal posts moved dozens of times always in reaction to further news that detailed different aspects of the chemical weapons campaign. Greenwald kept finding ways to dismiss the citizens on the ground. Because surely RT.com knows better. He then kept dismissing the joint international investigation team while it was in the field. Because surely Assad's own press releases know better. After awhile he deleted his Twitter timeline[1]. Greenwald is not a journalist when he carries forward narratives like this, he is an activist. Just like when he carried forward narratives from "Guccifer 2.0" aka Kremlin during the 2016 election. What he is doing here seems really similar to his conduct from that era. He thought he found -the thing- that exempts something he want to defend from ire. Now an entire narrative is build around it. His little personal fort. I'll never be able to forgive Glenn for using his name on Twitter to beat down Syrians who were giving first hand testimony and video evidence. He engaged against them like they were his enemy, likely because they were the enemy of his favored narrative and biases. Disgusting. Here is an archived version of his tweet[2]. You'll need it in time after he commits another purge when he moves onto the next indefensible right wing trope he feels like picking up. [1] https://twitter.com/im_pulse/status/1022690869139464192 https://twitter.com/im_pulse/status/1022690869139464192 [2] https://archive.vn/cmxFp https://archive.vn/cmxFp

raarts 6y ago
I don't like this. Please comment on what he states in his tweet, instead of bringing up old ones. When you're right, you're right. Regardless of your past.
- watwut 6y ago
  Greenwald has credibility because of his reporting on Snowden. That is primary and basically only reason why he is celebrity. And due to that, for many (including me in past) he is given trust and benefits of doubt other people don't. So I see parent comment quite relevant - the truth telling is matter of past.
- wtfiswiththis 6y ago
  >I don't like this. Plenty of users here will comment with proof about how Glenn is factually incorrect with his claim because that is easy. I'll provide a link myself later in this comment. A lot of others won't like that. My commentary when weighed against Glenn's current factual incorrectness will no doubt look very poorly for him, and plenty of people won't like that as well. They don't have to like it because facts don't care about their feelings. My comment above is meant to show some light on why Glenn would choose this path for himself defending Parler when he didn't need to. >Please comment on what he states in his tweet OK fine. Glenn is wrong. >When you're right, you're right. He was wrong then and is wrong now[1]. On this issue he will continue to be more wrong as time goes on. It was foolish or dumb for him to make this claim, and I know from communicating with him that he is neither a fool nor dumb so it is clear he made this statement with an agenda in mind. How brave and journalistic of Glenn to stand up for the Mercer family's[2] Parler by claiming zero arrests of people on the site. Claims made why, as an excuse to put out yet another narrative of 'suppression of free speech' against his right wing allies? That is a bad excuse. I called out his behavior based on his previous actions and, look at that, it matches his conduct today. He didn't stumble into doing this again he is no fool. When given evidence that he is wrong, like cited above, Glenn will first ignore it until someone with enough followers in news circles picks up it up and nags him. He will then move the goal posts a dozen times or so before ultimately deleting his tweets in a few months to a few years[3]. He has done this before and will do it again as time lessens pressure on the topic. When he feels the heat is off the tweet will be deleted. If the accumulative flak is too much he will just purge his tweets again. >Regardless of your past. They are dead, man. This wasn't some nebulous political jousting over ideas. This was real life and death. A lot of the people who Glenn tried to refute on Twitter before he had to adjust his narrative due to their evidence and testimony are dead or displaced. Their cities continued to be bombed, and many died. Their accounts went silent and eventually were suspended due to people reporting video and photo evidence of the horrific aftermath of chemical warfare as breaking Twitter and Youtube's terms of service. Glenn never wrote about anti-free speech efforts against them for some reason. And why would he? They were troublesome figures nagging him about the mighty anti-western imperialist screeds Glenn was writing at the time. Instead defending those with no voice he does things like choose to defend the Mercer family funded Parler. As if the Mercers need his help given the amount of money they were willing to burn to make Parler happen. The reason why I'm going on about this is because of the conduct I saw. A lot of Glenn's critics are dead and can no longer defend themselves from the narratives he was writing about them. I'll openly admit I have a bug up my ass on this subject, but the past matters and often reflects a mirror on people's actions today. They are dead, killed by the people Glenn said were doing no wrong. I'm still alive, I saw all of this unfold in real time, so I will carry forward this criticism as strongly as possible. Glenn has been an activist for years putting his name behind subjects he didn't ever have to comment on, and he is wrong about his claim now. The terrible truth is that he is likely wrong on purpose due to whatever ideological rubbish he wired his brain with. Again Glenn is not dumb, yet the statement he made about Parler was gobshit stupid. This was not accidental, as the stupid claim he made forwards his activist narrative. Glenn is an activist here, not a journalist. [1] https://twitter.com/azforeman/status/1348648808390008832 https://twitter.com/azforeman/status/1348648808390008832 [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-reportedly-backed-by-mercers-same-family-that-funded-cambridge-analytica/ar-BB1b1deS https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-reportedly-... [3] https://washingtonbabylon.com/glenn-greenwalds-deleted-tweets-on-russia-and-his-war-with-wikileaks/ https://washingtonbabylon.com/glenn-greenwalds-deleted-tweet...

raarts 6y ago

I don't like this. Please comment on what he states in his tweet, instead of bringing up old ones. When you're right, you're right. Regardless of your past.

watwut 6y ago
Greenwald has credibility because of his reporting on Snowden. That is primary and basically only reason why he is celebrity. And due to that, for many (including me in past) he is given trust and benefits of doubt other people don't. So I see parent comment quite relevant - the truth telling is matter of past.
wtfiswiththis 6y ago
>I don't like this. Plenty of users here will comment with proof about how Glenn is factually incorrect with his claim because that is easy. I'll provide a link myself later in this comment. A lot of others won't like that. My commentary when weighed against Glenn's current factual incorrectness will no doubt look very poorly for him, and plenty of people won't like that as well. They don't have to like it because facts don't care about their feelings. My comment above is meant to show some light on why Glenn would choose this path for himself defending Parler when he didn't need to. >Please comment on what he states in his tweet OK fine. Glenn is wrong. >When you're right, you're right. He was wrong then and is wrong now[1]. On this issue he will continue to be more wrong as time goes on. It was foolish or dumb for him to make this claim, and I know from communicating with him that he is neither a fool nor dumb so it is clear he made this statement with an agenda in mind. How brave and journalistic of Glenn to stand up for the Mercer family's[2] Parler by claiming zero arrests of people on the site. Claims made why, as an excuse to put out yet another narrative of 'suppression of free speech' against his right wing allies? That is a bad excuse. I called out his behavior based on his previous actions and, look at that, it matches his conduct today. He didn't stumble into doing this again he is no fool. When given evidence that he is wrong, like cited above, Glenn will first ignore it until someone with enough followers in news circles picks up it up and nags him. He will then move the goal posts a dozen times or so before ultimately deleting his tweets in a few months to a few years[3]. He has done this before and will do it again as time lessens pressure on the topic. When he feels the heat is off the tweet will be deleted. If the accumulative flak is too much he will just purge his tweets again. >Regardless of your past. They are dead, man. This wasn't some nebulous political jousting over ideas. This was real life and death. A lot of the people who Glenn tried to refute on Twitter before he had to adjust his narrative due to their evidence and testimony are dead or displaced. Their cities continued to be bombed, and many died. Their accounts went silent and eventually were suspended due to people reporting video and photo evidence of the horrific aftermath of chemical warfare as breaking Twitter and Youtube's terms of service. Glenn never wrote about anti-free speech efforts against them for some reason. And why would he? They were troublesome figures nagging him about the mighty anti-western imperialist screeds Glenn was writing at the time. Instead defending those with no voice he does things like choose to defend the Mercer family funded Parler. As if the Mercers need his help given the amount of money they were willing to burn to make Parler happen. The reason why I'm going on about this is because of the conduct I saw. A lot of Glenn's critics are dead and can no longer defend themselves from the narratives he was writing about them. I'll openly admit I have a bug up my ass on this subject, but the past matters and often reflects a mirror on people's actions today. They are dead, killed by the people Glenn said were doing no wrong. I'm still alive, I saw all of this unfold in real time, so I will carry forward this criticism as strongly as possible. Glenn has been an activist for years putting his name behind subjects he didn't ever have to comment on, and he is wrong about his claim now. The terrible truth is that he is likely wrong on purpose due to whatever ideological rubbish he wired his brain with. Again Glenn is not dumb, yet the statement he made about Parler was gobshit stupid. This was not accidental, as the stupid claim he made forwards his activist narrative. Glenn is an activist here, not a journalist. [1] https://twitter.com/azforeman/status/1348648808390008832 https://twitter.com/azforeman/status/1348648808390008832 [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-reportedly-backed-by-mercers-same-family-that-funded-cambridge-analytica/ar-BB1b1deS https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-reportedly-... [3] https://washingtonbabylon.com/glenn-greenwalds-deleted-tweets-on-russia-and-his-war-with-wikileaks/ https://washingtonbabylon.com/glenn-greenwalds-deleted-tweet...