4 ms·

That people have to go back to 2005 Greenwald to attack 2020 Greenwald is always a treat. And they can't even get it right when they do [1]! The Harris quotes s

That people have to go back to 2005 Greenwald to attack 2020 Greenwald is always a treat. And they can't even get it right when they do [1]! The Harris quotes speak for themselves. The article I linked upthread has some more. [1] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/30/1182442/-Glenn-Gr...

ggreer 6y ago
I'm not the one who brought up Greenwald's lies about Sam Harris. That was two other people. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. Regarding Greenwald's claim that he never supported the Iraq war: He redefines "support" to mean using a platform or role in politics to publicly profess support for the war. By that definition, my hawkish uncle didn't support the Iraq war because he never published anything on the matter. I agree with Greenwald that his beliefs at the time were reasonable. And I know the Iraq was a big reason why he changed many of his political views. But unlike Greenwald, Harris never even implicitly supported the Iraq war. At the time he thought it was, "...a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan." In hindsight, he admits it was a disaster. In The End of Faith, Harris uses the Iraq war as an example of the US being utterly abhorrent, but still being more ethical and moral than many other societies on the planet. He argues that the reason those societies haven't caused more harm is because they lack the capability, not the will, and that it's crucial to make that distinction. Now it's quite possible to disagree with that argument, but it takes an extremely uncharitable reading of Harris to get support for the Iraq war out of that text.
- cambalache 6y ago
  > but it takes an extremely uncharitable reading of Harris to get support for the Iraq war out of that text. I hate to get Goodwins-law on you, but that argument is nonsense for 2 reasons. The first one is that it is assuming the enemy would behave worse than you in your position (with no proof whatsoever) so it is extremely cynical in that regard. Using that template you could use Nazi Germany instead of the U.S and the argument would be exactly the same.The second reason is that even if assuming the enemy(let's say Hussein) would be a monster against Americans if only he had the power, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY AT ALL to invade Iraq (A country that did nothing to the US and presented 0 actual threat) and kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians. To me Harris is a genocide apologist and no acrobatic sophistry will convince me of the contrary.

ggreer 6y ago

I'm not the one who brought up Greenwald's lies about Sam Harris. That was two other people. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. Regarding Greenwald's claim that he never supported the Iraq war: He redefines "support" to mean using a platform or role in politics to publicly profess support for the war. By that definition, my hawkish uncle didn't support the Iraq war because he never published anything on the matter. I agree with Greenwald that his beliefs at the time were reasonable. And I know the Iraq was a big reason why he changed many of his political views. But unlike Greenwald, Harris never even implicitly supported the Iraq war. At the time he thought it was, "...a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan." In hindsight, he admits it was a disaster. In The End of Faith, Harris uses the Iraq war as an example of the US being utterly abhorrent, but still being more ethical and moral than many other societies on the planet. He argues that the reason those societies haven't caused more harm is because they lack the capability, not the will, and that it's crucial to make that distinction. Now it's quite possible to disagree with that argument, but it takes an extremely uncharitable reading of Harris to get support for the Iraq war out of that text.

cambalache 6y ago
> but it takes an extremely uncharitable reading of Harris to get support for the Iraq war out of that text. I hate to get Goodwins-law on you, but that argument is nonsense for 2 reasons. The first one is that it is assuming the enemy would behave worse than you in your position (with no proof whatsoever) so it is extremely cynical in that regard. Using that template you could use Nazi Germany instead of the U.S and the argument would be exactly the same.The second reason is that even if assuming the enemy(let's say Hussein) would be a monster against Americans if only he had the power, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY AT ALL to invade Iraq (A country that did nothing to the US and presented 0 actual threat) and kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians. To me Harris is a genocide apologist and no acrobatic sophistry will convince me of the contrary.