Is Glenn Greenwald right that Al Awlaki merely advocated that Muslims defend themselves?

[geek tragedy]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki

He became increasingly radicalized, like a lot of people have, over the last decade, as the United States has continued to slaughter Muslim men, women and children in multiple countries around the world, and he definitely became much more hostile in his sermons to the United States, and began arguing that it wasn’t just the duty but the right of Muslims to not just be passive receivers of violence by the U.S., but also to begin to attack the United States back as a means of deterring further violence. And so, he definitely became a great concern to the U.S. because he was so effective in communicating these ideas in English to large parts of the English speaking Muslim world. And, of course, expressing those ideas that the United States is engaged in aggression against the Muslim world and that Muslims have the right or even the duty to fight back rather than getting passively slaughtered, whether you agree with those ideas are not, or think they’re horrible ideas, they’re obviously rights you have to express under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

1. Someone voted that Greenwald is right, but Al Awlaki is wrong.

I would love to see why the notion that Muslims should defend themselves is wrong.

[geek tragedy]

2. We have one person who agrees with Al Awlaki's preachings?

Will they have the gumption to speak up?