When Privileged, "Libertarian" Elephants Fight -- UPDATE

1. Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald8m

   I dream of the day when someone will engage this argument without first wildly distorting it beyond recognition http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/24/an-islamist-beheading-in-britain-ctd-3/ …

   
   

   Expand
   

   •  Reply 
   •  Retweet 
   •  Favorite 
2. Andrew Sullivan ‏@sullydish37m

   Greenwald's blindness to the savagery at the heart of Salafism is very hard to understand, let alone forgive: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/24/an-islamist-beheading-in-britain-ctd-3/ …

   
   

   Expand

It is the grass that suffers.

UPDATE:

The ref's have examined the instant replay footage and have declared Mr. Greenwald to have cleaned Mr. Sullivan's clock:

...

So self-evident was Sullivan's Friday night bad conduct here that, within hours, numerous people had harshly condemned it. Law professor Kevin Jon Heller wrote: "Sullivan distorts Greenwald's argument beyond all recognition; I can only assume deliberately." University of Chicago Professor Harold Pollack complained that he "shouldn't have to click past Sullivan's angry post to see that Greenwald labelled [the] beheading 'barbaric and horrendous'". One of Sullivan's readers wrote him a lengthy and very astute email, published in full here, explaining to him that "your fundamental misreading of Greenwald's column is succinctly stated in your sentence: 'How can that [U.S. history in the Mideast] legitimize a British citizen's brutal beheading of a fellow British citizen on the streets of London?' Greenwald never remotely said that."

Now we arrive at the broader points that I think are raised by all of this. Contrary to Professor Heller's suggestion, I actually don't think that Sullivan's flagrant misrepresentations of what I wrote were deliberate. I definitely do think that about Jeffrey Goldberg and other various neocon smear artists who spent the last couple of days endlessly and loudly accusing me of being a pro-Terror, US-blaming Terrorist-lover, Jew-hating Terror-apologist and all the other tired neocon clichés that have been hurled at anyone and everyone over the last decade who questions the Mandated Narratives about "Islamic Terror",

Although the best and most appropriate same-day response overall remains that of the Muslim Council of Britain:

"This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly.

"Our thoughts are with the victim and his family.

"We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country's Armed Forces, proudly and with honour.

"This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder. This action will no doubt heighten tensions on the streets of the United Kingdom.

"We call on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail."

Also this bit from Mr. Greenwald, who is not generally known for sparing the throat-ripping invective when someone disagrees with him,

What, then, accounts for the distortions and sustained rage that ensues every time I make these arguments - not just from Sullivan but generally?

I think the answer lies in the very first sentence Sullivan wrote when responding to my column: "I really have to try restrain my anger here." It's an intensely emotional reaction, not a rational one. 

 was too hilariously clueless not to mention.