Greenwald says Canada's 'wallowing in war glory' caused terrorist attacks

Posted at 6:51 pm on October 22, 2014 by Jim Jamitis

The left, especially journalists, seem pathologically incapable of seeing Islamic radicalism as the cause of violence in any situation. Islamist fanatics only attack the west because the west has first done something to them. They intentionally ignore the fact that Islam has been a religion of conquest since its beginning.

Far-leftist Glenn Greenwald on Ottawa-Quebec terror attacks: au #Canada, you had it coming >> http://t.co/bTTBByqx1s
— Dan Gabriel (@danpgabriel) October 22, 2014

Lots of hysterics over this Greenwald post. It's apparently forbidden to explain that actions can have consequences. https://t.co/jN5d4nBhGu
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) October 22, 2014

@radleybalko It’s as if the word “blowback” itself is forbidden.
— Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) October 22, 2014

Not forbidden so much as naive. Islamist radicals need no provocation to attack the infidels.

@ChuckRossDC @radleybalko https://t.co/HV3gudgL3u
— Josiah Neeley (@jneeley78) October 22, 2014

@radleybalko He does appear to derive some pleasure in writing the post. I imagine him breathless with excitement and foaming at the mouth.
— The Hippo Says (@HippoAtLarge) October 22, 2014

@radleybalko @ggreenwald Yeah, cause that's all it is. Explaining these days is a lot like defending and excusing for some people.
— Chris Tsotsoros (@ctsotsoros) October 22, 2014

@ChuckRossDC He explicitly writes that such violence isn't justified. Only that it's inevitable. He isn't wrong about that.
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) October 22, 2014

@radleybalko @ggreenwald That's a lot of words about causation when you know so little about who did what.
— Pierre Asselin (@PierAsselin) October 22, 2014

@radleybalko He also explicitly uses loaded phrases like "wallowing in war glory." Pretty obvious he's not concerned only about blowback.
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 22, 2014

Dear confused right-wing friends: my article was about Monday's car incident, not the Ottawa shooting this morning https://t.co/dPCtNJW3mv
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 22, 2014

@ggreenwald Why wouldn't the same logic apply?
— Brandt (@UrbanAchievr) October 22, 2014

@UrbanAchievr Because nobody has any idea who the shooter is, what the motives are, or anything else about what s/he did.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 22, 2014

.@ggreenwald Yeah, not sure that's better.
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) October 22, 2014

.@ggreenwald We know, and you're still fucking insane.
— S.M (@redsteeze) October 22, 2014

NOT COMPLICATED RT @joestein1960 @LouiseMensch @instapundit Analyzing the cause of violence is not defending such violence.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 22, 2014

.@ggreenwald Nonsense. There’s no moral equivalence here, between striking the Taliban and ISIS and someone attacking a soldier in Montreal.
— Omer Aziz (@omeraziz12) October 22, 2014

@instapundit I love how @ggreenwald ignores jihadists have been at war with civilization for centuries. Typical Western Civ-hating 'journo'
— Arizona Luke (@ArizonaLuke) October 22, 2014

Religion of peace or something.