He is an expert on 4th generation warfare; and is one of those credited with developing the concept. He is well connected with the military and has been paid to teach. I would figure that you would always listen to an expert, harpie, even if you hated the guy.

I also think that reading the person's own words would be of more benefit than reading the smear jobs of his detractors. Believe it or not, I can find writers who positively detest Glenn Greenwald! Can you imagine forming your opinion of Glenn based on his detractors?

Anyway, I have been reading him since we went into Afghanistan and I am still waiting for him to be wrong. Perhaps you could look at his voluminous writings on the topic and find a glaring error.

As an aside; can you quote Lind and thereby show "hate" speech? You may be able to do so; I only read his posts on war and conflict around the world. I would be interested in a post that shows he is evil. And I mean besides the one where he claims to be the nations last monarchist. (in a post much like Howard Zinn's post on the Revolutionary War)

Even more to the point; can you point to anything in the linked post by him that is wrong in your considered opinion?

I agree, and would add that the Honduran situation reminds not just a little of the coup against Aristide. The Honduran military has a long relationship with the US; I find it difficult to believe that they would have moved forward without tacit approval from the US. We also wrung our hands and did nothing in Haiti.

Would you mind posting a link to the actual speech or is one man's say-so all that you need to make up your mind?

I say this because Greenwald often says the opposite of what he really believes here as he can be one hell of a snarky writer. Taken out of context and presented as his real position, these snarky replies could be used in a most unfair manner. I think I once pointed that out to him. (memory, I may have dreamed that last)

So far, we have your word that he is the most evil man in the world. Any links to proof rather than hearsay?

What is Cultural Marxism?

William S. Lind

They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled - - and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a “racist” or “sexist” of “fascist” - - and is also mentally ill.

Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).

http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

You can't read today? What portion of that mess was the speech calling for the nuking of Afghanistan?

All military experts are "bad guys" to me. But if you want to know what is going on in a way; guess what, you have to read some of the experts.

I see nothing of value one way or another in your post; just mindless joining in on a discussion. Wait; ... that is normal for you, ain't slug?

I also think that reading the person's own words would be of more benefit than reading the smear jobs of his detractors.

Yeah. That’s why you highlighted the following about Hillary Clinton [as reported by Lind], evidently just taking his words as fair “reporting”:

Hillary demanded, and reportedly got, a commitment to the opium dream of a "secular, democratic, peaceful" Afghanistan.

Can you prove what she really did/said? Why is his “smear job” OK?

To paraphrase you:

Would you mind posting a link to some real information about Clinton's actions in this case or is one man's say-so all that you need to make up your mind?

As an aside; can you quote Lind and thereby show "hate" speech? You may be able to do so; I only read his posts on war and conflict around the world.

I didn’t accuse him of “hate speech”. I accused him of hate and [indirectly] of lying. As I showed, The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote an article about a speech he gave to a “major Holocaust denial conference” which they entitled: “Mainstreaming Hate”.

I would be interested in a post that shows he is evil. […] So far, we have your word that he is the most evil man in the world.

No. That is your word.

You are lying about what I said, Heru-ur.

The “within 48 hours” words were quoted in the NYT, the Air Force magazine, and The Marine Corps Gazette. I linked to the first and since I'm not your research assistant, you can look for the others yourself.

Lind’s world view seems to be one of impending East/West cultural war, in which he views “The Other” [“Islamic culture”] as an apocalyptic enemy.

From: “Fourth-Generation Warfare: Another Look” by William S Lind - published November 2001

Now we, the West, find ourselves increasingly under siege, no longer the world's master, merely one contender among many-one sinking down as others rise. Chinese culture, the West's most successful competitor over time, may face us only with a peaceful challenge. China has never desired to rule over non-Han peoples, beyond a few border buffer states.

The most immediate challenger is Islam, and here the challenge is not likely to be peaceful. Islam is today expanding outward in every direction from its traditional heartland: south into black Africa, east into southeast Asia and the Philippines, north into Europe. And also West: the fastest-growing religion in the United States is Islam. http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/jan09-fourth-generation-warfare.asp

I think people's perspectives should be taken into account when appraising their words. In my opinion, Lind's world view is extrememly dangerous.