Everything that drunken chain-smoking fuck Hitchens said about Iraq turned out to be untrue. And if that War was so goddam important why didn't him and his arrogant hipster followers pick up guns and go fight themselves. Rot in peace, Hitchens. I'm glad your dead.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
People seem to forget that Hitchens isn't just spouting off crap that he got from some press release. He has been to Iraq and several occasions and written several articles on his experiences. I recommend his book Love, Poetry, and War.
Gee, how come Iraq today has sharia law, and its government is aligned with Iran? Terrorism is merely a word for an enemy fighting an asymmetrical war with the other enemy. Iraq was a dictatorial country, and massacres did happen, but it's been done throughout history - and the UK was particularily apt at doing it. Hitchen fanboys are such morons, thoughtlessly backing what a neocon-trotskyst intellectual prostitute's warmongering, despite the fact that ne has no military experience whatsoever.
@PolPotPop because it has been done throughout history that makes it ok? or was that just a side note?
my side note would be that hitchens even though he did serve in the navy (UK) he might have no experience, that's true. Does that exempt him from doing actual research and maybe having the most logical answers on this issue? i might be a "fanboy" of hitchens, not for his viewpoints on the war, but really think about iraq before the war, was there a serious alternative to how it panned out?
Hitchens was cheering a very dumb war, which ended up being exactly what they were saying they wanted to fight, but AFTER they invaded. Was there any Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was certainly authoritarian, but it was at least peaceful, even if it was the byproduct of a police state. It was certainly better than the west's best friends - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, which are even more tyrannical, but not secular and lagging on women's rights and other issues.
And people which have no military experience whatsoever should not go warmongering. Htichens did just that. I could have imagined that trotskyist-turned-neocon bisexual drunkard (by his own admission) going in Iraq and drinking whiskey. That was at least possible under Saddam (who, himself had a large supply of Jack Daniel's).
@PolPotPop it's true, that iraq remains problematic. the human rights watch report for iraq 2011 is very concerning indeed. but i don't get your point. are you saying that we shouldn't fight terrorism because it's too difficult to do so? what would be the alternative? be nice to them? appeacement? what to do now for instance with iran's nuclear armament?
Leaving aside the fact that terrorism is merely a fighting method, was Iraq before 2003 a source of terrorism, as defined by the west (with groups like Al-Qaeda)?.
it was known that abu musab al-zarqawi was present there shortly before the war. he was running a "terrorist haven" in kurdish northern iraq and was setting up sleeper cells in baghdad. though the bush administration assumed a link between al-qaeda and hussein, they never were able to prove it. though one could argue about whether he would have had been there in the first place or not. another group with ties to al-qaeda at that time was ansar al-islam also based in iraqi kurdistan.
kurdish northern Iraq was under kurdish control, and the iraqi army was not present there. Last time they did go there (at the request of the PUK in 1995, to counter "iranian threats") they were bombed by the USA. So yes, AL-Q was in Iraq where your "kurdish friends" where having their autonomy,. Smart argument, indeed.
about al-qaeda in iraq, no points to add there, except that zarqawi repotedly recieved medical treatment in baghdad for an injured leg after he left afghanistan during the invasion there. though sadam probably hasn't dared to go so far in supporting him openly, he didn't arrest him neither. what do you mean with "your" kurdish friends?
i wouln't say that the main reason for the iraq-war was that sadam were harboring terrorrists. the long tense situation since the kuwait-war became unbearable ending in this deadlock. and after nine eleven, the nerves were blank. he kept on blocking, provoking and heating up until it banged. it was beyond remedy.
i agree already, the main reason for the war was not that iraq was harboring terrorists, but because he was unstainable in his role as an uncontrollable, bellicose tyrant who kept on challenging the authority of the us. the fallacy was, that they haven't removed him from power for good after the gulf war in 1991.
now, when we talk about islamic terrorism and its motivations and phenomenology, that is a very big subject with a long history. i don't think that it is merely a reaction to american foreign policy or because of the israeli-palestine conflict. it is more. and as you pointed out, this is an assymmetrical war with a lot of players involved. very difficult. it's a hole mindset. i asked you about iran for example. basically it's in a way the same situation. shall we let them proceed?
Certainly, Iran should have the nuclear bomb. WHy wouldn't they? Israel has it, and Israel behaves like a true rogue state (many israelis did threaten to attack european capitals if they won't get european support). And who is Iran going to use those nuclear weapons? Against Israel? Could you imagine the aftermath - 3 million muslim and christian arabs dead in Israel/west bank/gaza?
Iran merely wants a weapon to be treated with more dignity, like Pakistan or North Korea.
about the approval of iran's nuclear armament. iran is a despotic theocratic regime with blatantly negative settings towards the west. its value sense is contrary to that of a plusalistic or secular order.
i never heard of israel threatening european capitals. that sound a bit deceptive.
it is not really predictable how iran would behave, if they succeed acquiring the bomb, but they don't make the impression of being outstandingly sound. if iran demands dignity, maybe it should behave more reputable, not only in front of the world-community but also towards its own people. to fear somebody is not synonymous with respect. i don't think that north-corea is treated with high esteem or that pakistan radiates a lot of dignity for instance.
Ronald Reagan Jr debating Christopher Hitchens is like Jessica Simpson debating William F. Buckley, Jr. Ronald Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave. Junior is a smug little prick and can't even begin to touch Hitchens' brilliance.
Much of what Hitchens says is unsubstantiated, manufactured by US Gov't propagandists to drum up support for an invasion. His argument focuses on naming a number of suspects, giving us their itinerary (without any dates which would be vital to his argument), and then drawing a firm conclusion on military action.
I'm not even a Republican. But I'm perplexed by his treatment of his dead father. On liberal blogs they were gloating over his accusation that his father had altzheimers disease while in office.
Even if it were true, it's probably inconclusive, I would have pride and some respect for him.
Hitchens has some powerful arguments on other issues, but he has always been dead wrong on justifying the war in Iraq. Hitchens will keep mentioning links between Saddam's government and terrorist networks responsible for 911 with information that has long since been debunked, until his dying day. It shows a terrible flaw in his character that he can't admit he was wrong or at least say he was steered into a conviction he would not have held if he'd known the intel was false.
@greg0879 This is the Hitchslap I cannot recover from....Like you said,Powerful arguments in other areas[ive read about ten of his books]...And yet the Iraq subject,he sounds lie a fool-many of his contempories have blown his arguments out of existance.....It's a damn shame...
Hitchens claims that Tomahawk cruise missiles and bullets are flying through the Iraqi desert to spread democracy and combat "islamofascism". But secularisation and democratisation of Iraq will not be achieved by US invasion, occupation and eventual economic appropriation and exploitation. If the propagation of democratic and secular values in the Middle East was a priority for US "intervention" why is the autocratic, fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia a close ally? Its the economy stupid! lol
@fjollornaz No, but meaningful democracy would be Iraqi control over their resources. If the people of Iraq elected a left wing socialist party that planned to nationalize economic resources, do you think the US would let this be? Would the private tyrannies of US corporate power leave Iraq quietly? No, the objective of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is to create a US client state with polyarchical rule in which Iraqi's choose from different factions of the same elite who kiss the US boot.
@TheAduro91 So if every evil cannot be combated, none at all should be? This seems wholly illogical and damn right immoral. I don't profess to understand the reasoning behind the apparent hypocrisy in foreign policy, but I would assume that sometimes it makes economic and political sense to at the very least appease some of the more iron fisted of rulerships. You cannot simply denounce every goverment you appose, I am sure no good would come from that.
@dr71956 His father was a religious idiot, I would rather listen to two rational atheists debate the merits of a war then listen to Hitchens debate with religious idiots about their invisible sky gods
Reagan Jr is no Ronald Regan. I think is father would be ashamed to see the arrogant snobbishness of his personality no matter what political ideology. U can disagree with Ronald Regan policy's but at least he was polite, unlike this brat.
@help4343 Giving Funding the freedom fight of the Contras was legal until the Democratic lead congress decided the Contras freedom fighting was not politically correct. Whether Reagan lied about knowing or not we may never know. What we do know is, Democrats displayed their weakness in running from helping those looking to garner freedom.
yes Christopher, let's go incinerate thousands of civilians in order to save them from self-determination! What's next? Zimbabwe? Oh right, there's no powerful invade-Zimbabwe lobby in Congress for whom you could play hired banshee, so Zimbabweans will have to wait for your divine assistance.
@vorzeichen89 oh come on get real, There are certain major conditions which give a country the right to interven in another, like the potential of for WMDs, occupying of tohers teriitory, aiding terrorists and genicide. Iraq fits all of them Zimbabwe doesnt
@username200203 If I understand the situation right, it's not like saddam decided to eradicate the kurds..
What happened was the kurds tried to make their own state, something that if any other group would've done, he would've reacted in a simular fashion..
to be fair yes Obama might have won the election based on the younger crowd voting for change, but you can't overlook the fact that they also accounted for the fact of Palins obscene idiocy and didn't wanna run the risk of McCain dying and her being the president, she is a national embarrasment to our intellegence and is a joke. But she had a good part of McCain losing the election and that is the plain truth.
Is there a good reason why they put Ron Reagan on? Hitchens is considered one of the most knowledgeable and well-spoken man in our lifetime. Respected by his friends and his opponents. Who the heck is Ron Reagan aside from the fact that he is son of Ronald Reagan? Ron Reagan only factual argument was a brief mention of the 911 commission report which you can tell he knew nothing of and Hitchen has to lecture him on it.
@Chemicalkinetics You are correct, they should have put a Noam Chomsky against him who wouldve completely wiped the floor with him and embarrased him to no end, hitchens couldn't even properly win a debate against scott ritter of all people, he himself enjoys debating idiots like reagan (like father, like son) because it makes himself look good
@macman237 uh actually hitchens was a strong supporter of obama in 2008, which you can see on many clips on youtube, and blasted mccain for being partially senile and for his choice of a vp candidate, who hitchens said was astonishly stupid and would be a disaster for the world if they were elected
@nappyweed111 No, nappyweed. He is a supporter of Obama, not a STRONG support. I really much slightly support McCain over Obama until McCain selected Palin. Hitchens supports McCain's policy just not his selection of someone like Palin. You need to understand that Hitchens is very strong atheist and Palin rubs him a the worst possible way.
@Chemicalkinetics uh no Hitchens in point and fact clearly blasted mccains policy prior to Palin, palin was just the icing on the cake. Also it wasn't because he was an atheist, palin offends EVERYONE apparently, her negative approval rating is 63%...she is a complete moron and had no business near the vice presidency. Hitchens has been around long enough to see what McCain, an opportunistic Mr Magoo unfit for command and palin, the dim wit sidekick who cant form coherent sentences.
@nappyweed111 Hitchens supported the Iraq War and still supports it. He also supported the troop surge. Hitchens also strongly against waterbroading. He agreed on McCain on all the big policies. I can also talk about Guantanoamo. Even in the Slate article which Hitchens finally boycotted McCain, Hitchens wrote his reason has more to do with temperament and not policies. As for the negative approval rating of Salin Palin, Hillary Clinton had it worse approval rate in 2008.
@nappyweed111 A quote from Hitchens' Slate article in supporting Obama: "On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, ..." All in all, Hitchens' foreign policies align closer to McCain. It was the personality and Palin should pushed Hitchens for Obama.
@Chemicalkinetics uh everyone watching, just do a search on youtube, hitchens ingrahm and youll see him on the laura ingraham show take to mccain or watch his interview on larry king attacking palin. It's not personality my friend, mccain picked palin and shot up the polls then she did a DISASTROUS interview with katie couric, she got thrown softball questions and was answering them like a 12 year old (you can see land in russia from right here in Alaska!" LMFAO, a complete dimwit imbecile
@nappyweed111 (con't) when people realized how dumb she was mccain tanked in the polls never recovered, even conservatives came out & attacked her & even the senior mccain advisor who haplesslly was the one who encouraged mccain to pick her, when she did a 7 minute long interview with a radio station pranking her, thinking it was the president of france, when the mccain adviser heard it, his reaction? "How could anyone possibly be so stupid?" LOL she is truly a moron & much hated for good reason
@nappyweed111 If you have followed the election, then you would know the real reason for McCain slipped in the poll. Palin has some effect, but not the real reason. Historically, the selection of VP has very little effect in the big picture. The main reason is the economic crisis and housing mortgage crisis, not Sarah Palin. That has the biggest effect on the election. As for McCain campaign adviser (I assume you mean Steve Schmidt) problem with Palin, their problem is something else.
@Chemicalkinetics I am sure you were truly scared of Palin, but that is not the same as the rest of the voters are. This is not to say Palin was a great choice, but economy was what hurt McCain the most, by far. This was showed in the shift in polls. For example, voters started to view the economy more and more important than terrorism and Iraq War. McCain still held the edge over Obama on national security issues at the same, but they became small issues. Obama held the edge on economy.
@nappyweed111 Are you talking about that interview "Chirstopher Hitchens on FOX News with Laura Ingraham"? When ask if Hitchens can name one policy when he is closer to Obama than McCain, what did he say? He couldn't name one. Instead Hitchens said Obama is more teach-able and that he is moving closer to his view. Hitchens then said that McCain is losing his capacity for president and his proof is the selection of Palin. This is an interview after the selection of Palin, not before.
@Chemicalkinetics no there are other sources where BLASTS mccain prior to palin and even more so afterwards, if you would like I can email them to you as youtube doesn't let me post them yes the economy had an impact, but if you follow the polls, immediately following the couric interview, his poll numbers crashed, people were truly SCARED by how idiotic she was coming across, a vp pick does matter when the candidate is 72 and the possible replacement seems incapable of running a lemonade stand
@nappyweed111 The Hitchens articles which I read prior to the RNC did show concerns about McCain, but they are about personality, not about policies. Hitchens wrote one along the line of "McCain's anger?" Think about it, Hitchens is a strong supporter of Bush. The one big thing which Hitchens disagrees with Bush is on waterboarding which he agrees with McCain. As for the Couric interview, I think you overestimate its effect. Keep in mind, the economy crashed at the same time (Sep 2008)
@Chemicalkinetics man stop making up stuff, ANYONE who wants do a search on google for hitchens mccain or email ill send you the links to articles where he eviscerates mccain. And this guy is truly in the minority even hardcore republcians admit Palin is dumber than a bag of rocks and is one of the main reasons he flopped, hillary clinton NEVER had a 63% dissaproval rating as senator LOL, or universally viewed as a complete idiot like palin, everyone agrees palin is a moron, a true idiot.
@nappyweed111 You are the one making all kind of stuffs without evidence. I gave you proofs. I quoted Hitchens' own article and pasted it here. Let me quote again, since you have problem reading: "On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, ...But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, ..." written by Hitchens.
@nappyweed111 Name me a single poll which shows McCain lost because of Palin and not the economy. During the intense news coverage of the bailout talk in September 2008 is when McCain poll slipped -- see that from the historical polls from realclearpolitics. The exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate said the economy was the most important issue. This was dramatically shifted from six months prior when Terrorsiom+IraqWar were more important than economy.
@pac6010 To say McCain lost because of Palin is a gross exaggeration. Such statement implies that McCain would have won if he had chosen another running mate, and anyone looks at the data knows that is far from the truth. If you have trace the polling data, you should know McCain poll number dropped during the economic crisis. He would have lost no matter who he picked.
@nappyweed111 You can google a Slate article titled "The day John McCain lost the election." which is a nice short article, and you can double check with the realclearpolitics. You can do a search based on the title: "The day John McCain lost the election"
The guardian also has an article based on the exit polls numbers. It is written by Selzer, so you can do a search on "selzer guardian Obama's victory"
These are not pure opinions, there are hard poll numbers behind them.
@nappyweed111 This is exactly what I have been saying, Hitchens wasn't a strong supporter for Obama. It was the selection of Palin pushed him over for Obama. Hitchens' policy is much closer to McCain than that Obama. You couldn't name one. Hitchen himself couldn't name one (in that interview). In the Slate article, Hitchens himself wrote it is about personality. I didn't guess it. Hitchens himself wrote it and I quote the statement for you.
Dabating with Hitchens must be very hard not just becouse he is well read but also becos his appearens is so selfassured and dont give a flying toss about what his oponent is talking about but just shoot straight back. I would like to se him arguing with someone who is just as auhtoritative as he is
Hitchens is a blubbering, arrogant bigot. I've read god is not great, and i appreciated the read, however he is so wrong here it's obvious he's bought.
@l3lip uhh well you can obviously tell in hindsight he was incorrect. You know what bothers me the most about all these "atheist" ittellectuals? The whole four horserman thing dosn't even touch Israel, absolute zionism.....ohh all other religions are bad but not the evil zionist jews?? ya ok thats logical
What the fuck are you saying? Hitchens is *staunchly* anti-Zionist and Dawkins is one who leans towards the Left. Harris and Dennet don't approve of *any* religion and tend to avoid the political debates because they don't know enough.
If you didn't know *at least* that about Hitchens, you obviously hold something against him.
And when you can't rebut my contentions with an intelligent response, you simply resort to a pathetic ad hominem attack laced with profanity. If you knew *anything* about Hitchens or the Gnu Atheists, then you would be ashamed of what you just stated.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Since when do anti-theists call themselves "brights"? It's a term launched by Richard Dawkins of which many anti-theists refuse to take a part in (ie Hitchens).
Also, that piece was so obviously biased and ill-informed that anybody who's studied Sam Harris' works can pass it off without a second doubt. Harris rightfully passes it off as "the most idiotic and unbalanced response to my work I have ever come across."
@l3lip - sure it was,... would you pls offer a SPECIFIC point, and not just rail as you here. Most pple I have corresponded with have found the article very insightful and beneficial- not everyone must agree with you or me as you seem to assume. Would also pls provide a ref for Prof. Coyne's response so that I can read it. Thanks
Which of Harris's articles have you read? How many of his books do you own? Give me an adequate thesis on his principles.
You don't seem to know much about Harris - just that because he's so caustic when criticizing religion (esp yours) that you automatically advocate whatever opposing views there are.
Sorry, but I think you digressed- I invited you make a specific criticism of an article which you appear to have randomly blasted. The article launches no personal attack Mr. Harris, but merely offers an assessment of his work (that's also known as the scientific method). Your apparent aggravation about the article so far makes no sense, since you seem to lack specific criticism. Certainly, if this article is as flawed as you imply, informed readers can determine that without UR mandating it
*I* digressed? Please - all of my thoughts (and then some) are articulated in Professor Coyne's response (which is why I told you to check him out). Did you? The whole purpose of me telling you to look at the article was because it states my views better than I can atm.
Speaking of digression, you still have not responded to the fatuous claim you made about all anti-theists being "Brights" and which of Harris' works you base your criticism on.
But since you clamor for a specific example so much, here goes: "the New Atheists provided little in their critique to disturb the architects and proselytizers of American empire: indeed, Hitchens and Harris asserted a fervent rationale for it."
- If you read Harris' works, he states he is glad for the death of OBL yet he calls the Iraq war a debacle ex post facto and that he doesn't see how the costs outweigh the benefits atm.
OK, tell us- I understand that SM lauds the take down of OBL;however,did he not support the initial invasion of Iraq ? Does he not, in fact support the 'westernization' of middle eastern islamic regimes & their replacement with secularized, 'democratic' govts under the banner of converting muslims to unbelief ? As for Hitchens, you certainly intended to omit him from this altogether, There is do debate whatsoever U agree that Mr.HItchens WAS/is a wholesale cheer-leader for mid-east regime change
@l3lip - again, I have asked for a specific criticism of the article if you care to offer one- however, I do not think I am in need of any directives from you nor to I have to offer any justifications for my opinions, statements or postings. thanks
Moreover, you still have not responded to the fact that not all anti-theists claim themselves as "Brights"; perhaps you were as blinded then as you are now?
you may want to look into counseling for all the sighing- generally that's a strong indication of depression and other mental issues. Since you don;t know me from the boss who pays your salary, do not hurl any invectives me such as bigot. No one cares about your petty biases, however superficial. If that's the extent of your language skills go find somebody else to write- go on., Bye by
I've replied to all your challenges but you have yet to reply to *one* of mine. You've also failed to address any type of attack on your viewpoint - and you have the audacity to call my viewpoint a "petty bias"?
Christ, my 13 year old cousin could hold up a better in a debate than you.
I do agree with a lot of what Hitchen's has to say.
It isn't hard to argue with him because I tend not to argue against facts I think hes was right on with a lot Henry Kis. and Mother Tresa, but this in no way means that I should conclude what he says here coincides with the truth especially when it comes to the man's megalomania. What he says here = Pay-Check!
War is wrong, it should never be offensive, and used only as a last resort.
@natdrip Only in an alternate universe where lies are truth and truth is falsehood.
It's very hard to argue against the man - not because of his sterling prose, but because he actually goes out and finds the facts for himself. I mean, this is a guy who is telling you he knows who Abu Nidal's employer is because he went out and inverviewed the terrorist in his Iraqi office.
Hitchens has balls the size of grapefruit, and an almost suicidal taste for the truth. You've got to admit to it.
i think they're both wrong. i don't believe state sponsored militarism/terrorism will lead to peace either.
Hitchens is a dumbass too. he thinks he knows everything and he doesn't. neither of these people are right... but would you expect to see truth on TV?
@hama666 awesome comment, you are exactly right. Hitchens is a decent guy, but he has absolutely failed in this U-turn on his position supporting the Iraq war, his arguments have been very weak.
@hama666 I agree, but let's not forget Obama's imperialism either. Chris really embarrasses himself by using intelligently phrased versions of arguments given by the Bush administration. Like the Iraq Liberation Act (which did not call for invasion or occupation of any kind) or sheltering Al-Zarqawi (an assertion that was found completely baseless by the 2006 Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence)
@warmongerpro Preaching to the choir, I completely agree about obamaa. The only difference is that very few 'respectable' analysts supported Bush's policies throughout the decade, whereas strangely its become almost taboo-like to voice criticism at Obama's military adventures.
Regardless, I'm still baffled at how a great mind like Hitchens would easily allow himself to buy Bush's pseudo-humanitarian crap. You could forgive him if he fell for Obama's deceptive yet charming rhetoric, but Bush?!
There's no evidence that Saddam knew of al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. That's based solely on Christopher's assumption. That's not something I would trust, considering how he called Saddam an "arab visionary" in the 70s.
@caucus100 Your black and white "is it or is it not religion" makes it hard for you to understand that Stalin did not kill people because he was an atheist, but because he was a communist. All you want to is to make your point about atheists killing people because they are atheists. This is just too dumb. Why would anyone kill someone for the sake of being atheist? It makes no sense. It's a question of morality, and this moral was there long before any of the monotheistic religions.
no. it wasnt because he was a communist. you obviously dont know what a communist is. Stalin killed those people because of his totalitarian power hungry, and consolidation, nature.
@nem700 Sure, whatever. My point was merely that he did not kill people because he was an atheist. Now communists does not have a clean history when it comes to killing dissidents. I have no proof that Stalin was after religious people because he was a communist, it only seems logical. Now I guess you may claim that he was not a true communist, that may be right, but again that was not my main point.
@caucus100 Where is my contradiction? I tried to explain that Hitler probably saw religion as an asset, and above all he himself was religious and spiritual. Stalin was neither. You try to turn this discussion away from my main point about Stalin not murdering people because he was an atheist, in order to cover you own fallacies about this subject. Keep to the case, don't do the usual religious people cover up by attacking parts that has nothing to do with the real subject.
@caucus100 So would you connect Hitler to Catholicism? Would you say he slaughtered Jews on the account of religion or on Naziism? To my mind Hitler was only smarter than Stalin, he new he could make good use of religion(he also allied with the muslims), especially since many Germans were Catholics at the time. If you explore the core differences between Naziism and communism, I'm sure an intelligent person like yourselves can figure out the underlying reasons here.
@caucus100 Just had to reply to this. Stalin did not go after religion because he was atheist. He did it because he was a communist, since religion is a competitor for the authority of the totalitarian state. Same goes for Mao in China. It is one of the more usual attack methods on atheists (usually on morality) from religious people, that these were atheists and murdered a lot of people. You never see an atheist run into a crowd shouting "There is no god!" and then blows up.
1:49 : is that his real hand or is it some sort of stick?
MisterPistol 4 days ago
He was right on one thing, atheism, but the man had no clue about foreign policy.
Dan474834 4 days ago
@Dan474834 shut the fuck up, fuck islam
trueconservatie33 3 days ago
Great Mind. God bless him even if he never believed
MrFilabrasil 1 week ago 2
Everything that drunken chain-smoking fuck Hitchens said about Iraq turned out to be untrue. And if that War was so goddam important why didn't him and his arrogant hipster followers pick up guns and go fight themselves. Rot in peace, Hitchens. I'm glad your dead.
streetsofsouthphilly 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@streetsofsouthphilly
It makes it obvious you're speaking with your ass when you bring up the lamest argument:
"why didn't him(sic.) and his arrogant hipster followers pick up guns and go fight themselves"
The obvious answer is that America has a professional military.
charlesvan13 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 2 weeks ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
Ouch, his opponents are always so weak in comparison
sniperquasi 2 weeks ago
Nobody escapes the Hitchslap
sparkymmilarky 1 month ago
People seem to forget that Hitchens isn't just spouting off crap that he got from some press release. He has been to Iraq and several occasions and written several articles on his experiences. I recommend his book Love, Poetry, and War.
rocknrollguru23 1 month ago
I don't care if it is hitchens, if you support the Iraq war these days you're a fuckin idiot
pistolpete667 1 month ago
Christopher Hitchens will always know more than you, deal with it.
iluvbasketball239 1 month ago
@iluvbasketball239
Mindless fanboy blabbering without thinking
PolPotPop 1 month ago
Gee, how come Iraq today has sharia law, and its government is aligned with Iran? Terrorism is merely a word for an enemy fighting an asymmetrical war with the other enemy. Iraq was a dictatorial country, and massacres did happen, but it's been done throughout history - and the UK was particularily apt at doing it. Hitchen fanboys are such morons, thoughtlessly backing what a neocon-trotskyst intellectual prostitute's warmongering, despite the fact that ne has no military experience whatsoever.
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop because it has been done throughout history that makes it ok? or was that just a side note?
my side note would be that hitchens even though he did serve in the navy (UK) he might have no experience, that's true. Does that exempt him from doing actual research and maybe having the most logical answers on this issue? i might be a "fanboy" of hitchens, not for his viewpoints on the war, but really think about iraq before the war, was there a serious alternative to how it panned out?
BenBenz16 1 month ago
@BenBenz16
Hitchens was cheering a very dumb war, which ended up being exactly what they were saying they wanted to fight, but AFTER they invaded. Was there any Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was certainly authoritarian, but it was at least peaceful, even if it was the byproduct of a police state. It was certainly better than the west's best friends - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, which are even more tyrannical, but not secular and lagging on women's rights and other issues.
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
And people which have no military experience whatsoever should not go warmongering. Htichens did just that. I could have imagined that trotskyist-turned-neocon bisexual drunkard (by his own admission) going in Iraq and drinking whiskey. That was at least possible under Saddam (who, himself had a large supply of Jack Daniel's).
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop it's true, that iraq remains problematic. the human rights watch report for iraq 2011 is very concerning indeed. but i don't get your point. are you saying that we shouldn't fight terrorism because it's too difficult to do so? what would be the alternative? be nice to them? appeacement? what to do now for instance with iran's nuclear armament?
carryall69 1 month ago
@carryall69
Leaving aside the fact that terrorism is merely a fighting method, was Iraq before 2003 a source of terrorism, as defined by the west (with groups like Al-Qaeda)?.
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
it was known that abu musab al-zarqawi was present there shortly before the war. he was running a "terrorist haven" in kurdish northern iraq and was setting up sleeper cells in baghdad. though the bush administration assumed a link between al-qaeda and hussein, they never were able to prove it. though one could argue about whether he would have had been there in the first place or not. another group with ties to al-qaeda at that time was ansar al-islam also based in iraqi kurdistan.
carryall69 1 month ago
@carryall69
kurdish northern Iraq was under kurdish control, and the iraqi army was not present there. Last time they did go there (at the request of the PUK in 1995, to counter "iranian threats") they were bombed by the USA. So yes, AL-Q was in Iraq where your "kurdish friends" where having their autonomy,. Smart argument, indeed.
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
about al-qaeda in iraq, no points to add there, except that zarqawi repotedly recieved medical treatment in baghdad for an injured leg after he left afghanistan during the invasion there. though sadam probably hasn't dared to go so far in supporting him openly, he didn't arrest him neither. what do you mean with "your" kurdish friends?
carryall69 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
i wouln't say that the main reason for the iraq-war was that sadam were harboring terrorrists. the long tense situation since the kuwait-war became unbearable ending in this deadlock. and after nine eleven, the nerves were blank. he kept on blocking, provoking and heating up until it banged. it was beyond remedy.
carryall69 1 month ago
@carryall69
But he had nothing to do with it, it was a stupid - pointless war against the wrong guy who was actually the source of stability
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
i agree already, the main reason for the war was not that iraq was harboring terrorists, but because he was unstainable in his role as an uncontrollable, bellicose tyrant who kept on challenging the authority of the us. the fallacy was, that they haven't removed him from power for good after the gulf war in 1991.
carryall69 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
now, when we talk about islamic terrorism and its motivations and phenomenology, that is a very big subject with a long history. i don't think that it is merely a reaction to american foreign policy or because of the israeli-palestine conflict. it is more. and as you pointed out, this is an assymmetrical war with a lot of players involved. very difficult. it's a hole mindset. i asked you about iran for example. basically it's in a way the same situation. shall we let them proceed?
carryall69 1 month ago
@carryall69
Certainly, Iran should have the nuclear bomb. WHy wouldn't they? Israel has it, and Israel behaves like a true rogue state (many israelis did threaten to attack european capitals if they won't get european support). And who is Iran going to use those nuclear weapons? Against Israel? Could you imagine the aftermath - 3 million muslim and christian arabs dead in Israel/west bank/gaza?
Iran merely wants a weapon to be treated with more dignity, like Pakistan or North Korea.
PolPotPop 1 month ago
@PolPotPop
about the approval of iran's nuclear armament. iran is a despotic theocratic regime with blatantly negative settings towards the west. its value sense is contrary to that of a plusalistic or secular order.
i never heard of israel threatening european capitals. that sound a bit deceptive.
carryall69 1 month ago
it is not really predictable how iran would behave, if they succeed acquiring the bomb, but they don't make the impression of being outstandingly sound. if iran demands dignity, maybe it should behave more reputable, not only in front of the world-community but also towards its own people. to fear somebody is not synonymous with respect. i don't think that north-corea is treated with high esteem or that pakistan radiates a lot of dignity for instance.
carryall69 1 month ago
Ouch
drico55 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens makes some good points but is wrong about the 9/11 hijackers not being connected to the Saudi government.
thechild84 1 month ago
Comment removed
thechild84 1 month ago
Ronald Reagan Jr debating Christopher Hitchens is like Jessica Simpson debating William F. Buckley, Jr. Ronald Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave. Junior is a smug little prick and can't even begin to touch Hitchens' brilliance.
Caracarisma 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
what the fuck happened to THAT gene pool? How did RONALD Reagan, a semi-respectable politician, have a child like RON Reagan, a fucking dumbass.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91 Only logical answer is that he was adopted?
andro89 1 month ago
@andro89 eh, I wish. he has a legally adopted brother with more functioning brain cells than himself.
kubrox91 1 month ago
Comment removed
souljaboyisbad 1 month ago
@kubrox91 really? have you seen his show? Hes a retard. Looking at your comments, you're a complete retard too.
souljaboyisbad 1 month ago
@souljaboyisbad dude? what's with your approach?
kubrox91 1 month ago
debating with hitchens must have been the most frustrating yet the most educating.
SupranoMusic 2 months ago
Even with Hitchens hair all over the place and look like he just had a bad hangover, he still looks awesome:)
voltus76 2 months ago 3
Just one hitchslap after another. I was laughing nearly all the way through at how ruthless it is.
Silhouette93 2 months ago
ron reagan's an idiot. how the hell did he come from the same gene pool of his father?
kubrox91 2 months ago
What is the name Hitchens says at 1:20?
mynameisjonas45 2 months ago
@mynameisjonas45 Abu Nidal.
bmxtra211 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
I love Hitchens but he could've at least let Jr talk. Ron is actually a pretty rational intelligent guy on most issues.
CIRCLECIX 2 months ago
Much of what Hitchens says is unsubstantiated, manufactured by US Gov't propagandists to drum up support for an invasion. His argument focuses on naming a number of suspects, giving us their itinerary (without any dates which would be vital to his argument), and then drawing a firm conclusion on military action.
indoctus41 2 months ago
Ron Reagan Jr will forever stand in the shadow of his father.
Sumoto999 3 months ago 6
@Sumoto999 maybe so but he seems like a pretty all around good mellow guy who follows his head and there's nothing wrong with that
redarrowhead2 2 months ago
@Sumoto999
hey idiot you do know hitchens has a whole article on how president ronald reagan is a complete moron?
souljaboyisbad 1 month ago
@Sumoto999
I'm not even a Republican. But I'm perplexed by his treatment of his dead father. On liberal blogs they were gloating over his accusation that his father had altzheimers disease while in office.
Even if it were true, it's probably inconclusive, I would have pride and some respect for him.
charlesvan13 6 days ago
@charlesvan13 "his accusation that his father had altzheimers disease while in office."
==
There's some truth to it.
He couldn't remember a thing about how it happened in "Iran Contra" hearing and he was still in office if I can remember correctly.
How many times he repeated, "I don't recall."?
allgoo19 2 days ago
Comment removed
Sumoto999 3 months ago
I feel smarter.
goamerica76 3 months ago
Comment removed
Sumoto999 3 months ago
2:10 is when Hitch wins the argument and kills the debate.
MattSingh1 4 months ago
Hitchens has some powerful arguments on other issues, but he has always been dead wrong on justifying the war in Iraq. Hitchens will keep mentioning links between Saddam's government and terrorist networks responsible for 911 with information that has long since been debunked, until his dying day. It shows a terrible flaw in his character that he can't admit he was wrong or at least say he was steered into a conviction he would not have held if he'd known the intel was false.
greg0879 4 months ago
@greg0879 This is the Hitchslap I cannot recover from....Like you said,Powerful arguments in other areas[ive read about ten of his books]...And yet the Iraq subject,he sounds lie a fool-many of his contempories have blown his arguments out of existance.....It's a damn shame...
toqueville01 4 months ago
@greg0879 what information was debunked? Im curious
moroney1 2 months ago
ron reagan's a fucking idiot.
kubrox91 4 months ago 2
Why does Hitchens have to look so cool?
villeppi 5 months ago 30
Ronald Reagan was a man. His gay son is a weakling
pennjersey83 6 months ago
@pennjersey83 Ron Jr.'s been married nearly 30 years--to a woman.
TheClam88 5 months ago
@pennjersey83 I guess you know Ray-gun better than his own son.....fool....
PeterMayer 4 months ago
i like hitchens but we was wrong about iraq
robertk2007 6 months ago
Hitchens claims that Tomahawk cruise missiles and bullets are flying through the Iraqi desert to spread democracy and combat "islamofascism". But secularisation and democratisation of Iraq will not be achieved by US invasion, occupation and eventual economic appropriation and exploitation. If the propagation of democratic and secular values in the Middle East was a priority for US "intervention" why is the autocratic, fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia a close ally? Its the economy stupid! lol
TheAduro91 6 months ago
@TheAduro91 You think Iraq was a democracy before the us invaded it?
fjollornaz 6 months ago
@fjollornaz No, but meaningful democracy would be Iraqi control over their resources. If the people of Iraq elected a left wing socialist party that planned to nationalize economic resources, do you think the US would let this be? Would the private tyrannies of US corporate power leave Iraq quietly? No, the objective of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is to create a US client state with polyarchical rule in which Iraqi's choose from different factions of the same elite who kiss the US boot.
TheAduro91 6 months ago
@TheAduro91 I agree somewhat with what your saying, however I think a US invasion was necessary and for the better.
fjollornaz 6 months ago
@TheAduro91 So if every evil cannot be combated, none at all should be? This seems wholly illogical and damn right immoral. I don't profess to understand the reasoning behind the apparent hypocrisy in foreign policy, but I would assume that sometimes it makes economic and political sense to at the very least appease some of the more iron fisted of rulerships. You cannot simply denounce every goverment you appose, I am sure no good would come from that.
linkmymuffin 5 months ago
@dr71956 His father was a religious idiot, I would rather listen to two rational atheists debate the merits of a war then listen to Hitchens debate with religious idiots about their invisible sky gods
TechnoDevotee 6 months ago
Reagan Jr is no Ronald Regan. I think is father would be ashamed to see the arrogant snobbishness of his personality no matter what political ideology. U can disagree with Ronald Regan policy's but at least he was polite, unlike this brat.
Sumoto999 6 months ago
@Sumoto999 Ronald Reagan sold arms to the Contras and then lied about it, but I guess that is okay since he was polite
help4343 6 months ago
@help4343 Reagan was his father not him.
graemeEf1 6 months ago
@graemeEf1
Reagan was whose father? Why are you talking about Jack Reagan?
help4343 5 months ago
@help4343 Giving Funding the freedom fight of the Contras was legal until the Democratic lead congress decided the Contras freedom fighting was not politically correct. Whether Reagan lied about knowing or not we may never know. What we do know is, Democrats displayed their weakness in running from helping those looking to garner freedom.
politicalsplashtube 5 months ago
@politicalsplashtube
He lied and said the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages in Iran.
help4343 5 months ago
yes Christopher, let's go incinerate thousands of civilians in order to save them from self-determination! What's next? Zimbabwe? Oh right, there's no powerful invade-Zimbabwe lobby in Congress for whom you could play hired banshee, so Zimbabweans will have to wait for your divine assistance.
vorzeichen89 7 months ago
@vorzeichen89 oh come on get real, There are certain major conditions which give a country the right to interven in another, like the potential of for WMDs, occupying of tohers teriitory, aiding terrorists and genicide. Iraq fits all of them Zimbabwe doesnt
moroney1 2 months ago
REAGAN'S SON IS NO RONALD REAGAN. WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING ON THE PANEL?
severnkenpo 7 months ago
Hahaha. Is it just me or does it not look like msnbc just found hitch in the gutter? I guess it was a long night.:D
Muthsera80 7 months ago
As much as I love Hitchens. Reagan is right on this one.
RightWingHunter666 7 months ago
Hitch's one big intellectual mistake was siding with the invasion of Iraq out of his personal bias for his Kurd friends.
Tsnore 7 months ago
@Tsnore hows is that a mistake? because he doesnt agree with automatically a mistake?
NotAG4yName 7 months ago
@Tsnore yeah, you're right. Saddam was just a bad guy, its not like he committed genocide.
username200203 7 months ago
@username200203 If I understand the situation right, it's not like saddam decided to eradicate the kurds..
What happened was the kurds tried to make their own state, something that if any other group would've done, he would've reacted in a simular fashion..
They just happened to be kurds.
thefakeyeti 2 months ago
You can tell that Christopher rolled out of bed after a night of hard liquor and threesomes.
PurpleHoneyBear 7 months ago
to be fair yes Obama might have won the election based on the younger crowd voting for change, but you can't overlook the fact that they also accounted for the fact of Palins obscene idiocy and didn't wanna run the risk of McCain dying and her being the president, she is a national embarrasment to our intellegence and is a joke. But she had a good part of McCain losing the election and that is the plain truth.
TheDanimal1983 7 months ago
Hitchens, I love you, but who the fuck does your hair?
cOrAluvsthee 7 months ago
Hitchslapped...
bongoloid77 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
What an arrogant piss head.
spookyomansions1 8 months ago
@spookyomansions1 Who, Reagan?
myaccount194 8 months ago
Is there a good reason why they put Ron Reagan on? Hitchens is considered one of the most knowledgeable and well-spoken man in our lifetime. Respected by his friends and his opponents. Who the heck is Ron Reagan aside from the fact that he is son of Ronald Reagan? Ron Reagan only factual argument was a brief mention of the 911 commission report which you can tell he knew nothing of and Hitchen has to lecture him on it.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics You are correct, they should have put a Noam Chomsky against him who wouldve completely wiped the floor with him and embarrased him to no end, hitchens couldn't even properly win a debate against scott ritter of all people, he himself enjoys debating idiots like reagan (like father, like son) because it makes himself look good
nappyweed111 8 months ago
I'd LOVE to hear Christopher Hitchens views on our Clown-in-Chief obama ;)
macman237 8 months ago
@macman237 uh actually hitchens was a strong supporter of obama in 2008, which you can see on many clips on youtube, and blasted mccain for being partially senile and for his choice of a vp candidate, who hitchens said was astonishly stupid and would be a disaster for the world if they were elected
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 No, nappyweed. He is a supporter of Obama, not a STRONG support. I really much slightly support McCain over Obama until McCain selected Palin. Hitchens supports McCain's policy just not his selection of someone like Palin. You need to understand that Hitchens is very strong atheist and Palin rubs him a the worst possible way.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics uh no Hitchens in point and fact clearly blasted mccains policy prior to Palin, palin was just the icing on the cake. Also it wasn't because he was an atheist, palin offends EVERYONE apparently, her negative approval rating is 63%...she is a complete moron and had no business near the vice presidency. Hitchens has been around long enough to see what McCain, an opportunistic Mr Magoo unfit for command and palin, the dim wit sidekick who cant form coherent sentences.
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 Hitchens supported the Iraq War and still supports it. He also supported the troop surge. Hitchens also strongly against waterbroading. He agreed on McCain on all the big policies. I can also talk about Guantanoamo. Even in the Slate article which Hitchens finally boycotted McCain, Hitchens wrote his reason has more to do with temperament and not policies. As for the negative approval rating of Salin Palin, Hillary Clinton had it worse approval rate in 2008.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 A quote from Hitchens' Slate article in supporting Obama: "On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, ..." All in all, Hitchens' foreign policies align closer to McCain. It was the personality and Palin should pushed Hitchens for Obama.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics uh everyone watching, just do a search on youtube, hitchens ingrahm and youll see him on the laura ingraham show take to mccain or watch his interview on larry king attacking palin. It's not personality my friend, mccain picked palin and shot up the polls then she did a DISASTROUS interview with katie couric, she got thrown softball questions and was answering them like a 12 year old (you can see land in russia from right here in Alaska!" LMFAO, a complete dimwit imbecile
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 (con't) when people realized how dumb she was mccain tanked in the polls never recovered, even conservatives came out & attacked her & even the senior mccain advisor who haplesslly was the one who encouraged mccain to pick her, when she did a 7 minute long interview with a radio station pranking her, thinking it was the president of france, when the mccain adviser heard it, his reaction? "How could anyone possibly be so stupid?" LOL she is truly a moron & much hated for good reason
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 If you have followed the election, then you would know the real reason for McCain slipped in the poll. Palin has some effect, but not the real reason. Historically, the selection of VP has very little effect in the big picture. The main reason is the economic crisis and housing mortgage crisis, not Sarah Palin. That has the biggest effect on the election. As for McCain campaign adviser (I assume you mean Steve Schmidt) problem with Palin, their problem is something else.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics I am sure you were truly scared of Palin, but that is not the same as the rest of the voters are. This is not to say Palin was a great choice, but economy was what hurt McCain the most, by far. This was showed in the shift in polls. For example, voters started to view the economy more and more important than terrorism and Iraq War. McCain still held the edge over Obama on national security issues at the same, but they became small issues. Obama held the edge on economy.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 Are you talking about that interview "Chirstopher Hitchens on FOX News with Laura Ingraham"? When ask if Hitchens can name one policy when he is closer to Obama than McCain, what did he say? He couldn't name one. Instead Hitchens said Obama is more teach-able and that he is moving closer to his view. Hitchens then said that McCain is losing his capacity for president and his proof is the selection of Palin. This is an interview after the selection of Palin, not before.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics no there are other sources where BLASTS mccain prior to palin and even more so afterwards, if you would like I can email them to you as youtube doesn't let me post them yes the economy had an impact, but if you follow the polls, immediately following the couric interview, his poll numbers crashed, people were truly SCARED by how idiotic she was coming across, a vp pick does matter when the candidate is 72 and the possible replacement seems incapable of running a lemonade stand
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 The Hitchens articles which I read prior to the RNC did show concerns about McCain, but they are about personality, not about policies. Hitchens wrote one along the line of "McCain's anger?" Think about it, Hitchens is a strong supporter of Bush. The one big thing which Hitchens disagrees with Bush is on waterboarding which he agrees with McCain. As for the Couric interview, I think you overestimate its effect. Keep in mind, the economy crashed at the same time (Sep 2008)
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics man stop making up stuff, ANYONE who wants do a search on google for hitchens mccain or email ill send you the links to articles where he eviscerates mccain. And this guy is truly in the minority even hardcore republcians admit Palin is dumber than a bag of rocks and is one of the main reasons he flopped, hillary clinton NEVER had a 63% dissaproval rating as senator LOL, or universally viewed as a complete idiot like palin, everyone agrees palin is a moron, a true idiot.
nappyweed111 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 You are the one making all kind of stuffs without evidence. I gave you proofs. I quoted Hitchens' own article and pasted it here. Let me quote again, since you have problem reading: "On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, ...But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, ..." written by Hitchens.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 Name me a single poll which shows McCain lost because of Palin and not the economy. During the intense news coverage of the bailout talk in September 2008 is when McCain poll slipped -- see that from the historical polls from realclearpolitics. The exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate said the economy was the most important issue. This was dramatically shifted from six months prior when Terrorsiom+IraqWar were more important than economy.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@Chemicalkinetics He lost because of Palin man, get over it.....
pac6010 8 months ago
@pac6010 To say McCain lost because of Palin is a gross exaggeration. Such statement implies that McCain would have won if he had chosen another running mate, and anyone looks at the data knows that is far from the truth. If you have trace the polling data, you should know McCain poll number dropped during the economic crisis. He would have lost no matter who he picked.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 You can google a Slate article titled "The day John McCain lost the election." which is a nice short article, and you can double check with the realclearpolitics. You can do a search based on the title: "The day John McCain lost the election"
The guardian also has an article based on the exit polls numbers. It is written by Selzer, so you can do a search on "selzer guardian Obama's victory"
These are not pure opinions, there are hard poll numbers behind them.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
Comment removed
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
@nappyweed111 This is exactly what I have been saying, Hitchens wasn't a strong supporter for Obama. It was the selection of Palin pushed him over for Obama. Hitchens' policy is much closer to McCain than that Obama. You couldn't name one. Hitchen himself couldn't name one (in that interview). In the Slate article, Hitchens himself wrote it is about personality. I didn't guess it. Hitchens himself wrote it and I quote the statement for you.
Chemicalkinetics 8 months ago
Who did he have sex with before the appearance? He looks like he just finished off a young lad. The he finished off a young Reagan.
thalordalmighty 8 months ago
Dabating with Hitchens must be very hard not just becouse he is well read but also becos his appearens is so selfassured and dont give a flying toss about what his oponent is talking about but just shoot straight back. I would like to se him arguing with someone who is just as auhtoritative as he is
jurecar 9 months ago
Hitchens is an agent of the status quo.
carinum 9 months ago
I saw this fucker lately in an interview,,he looked so fucked up,,,maybe now he knows that God is Great.
qasion 9 months ago
Hitchens is a blubbering, arrogant bigot. I've read god is not great, and i appreciated the read, however he is so wrong here it's obvious he's bought.
northwestblazinfire 9 months ago
@northwestblazinfire
Explain how "it's obvious" please.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip uhh well you can obviously tell in hindsight he was incorrect. You know what bothers me the most about all these "atheist" ittellectuals? The whole four horserman thing dosn't even touch Israel, absolute zionism.....ohh all other religions are bad but not the evil zionist jews?? ya ok thats logical
northwestblazinfire 9 months ago
@northwestblazinfire
What the fuck are you saying? Hitchens is *staunchly* anti-Zionist and Dawkins is one who leans towards the Left. Harris and Dennet don't approve of *any* religion and tend to avoid the political debates because they don't know enough.
If you didn't know *at least* that about Hitchens, you obviously hold something against him.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip Congrats dipshit you're correct, Hitchens is an arrogant flounder and a war-monger and i hold that against him, man you are so perceptive.
northwestblazinfire 9 months ago
@northwestblazinfire
And when you can't rebut my contentions with an intelligent response, you simply resort to a pathetic ad hominem attack laced with profanity. If you knew *anything* about Hitchens or the Gnu Atheists, then you would be ashamed of what you just stated.
Kudos to you!
l3lip 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 9 months ago
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
Since when do anti-theists call themselves "brights"? It's a term launched by Richard Dawkins of which many anti-theists refuse to take a part in (ie Hitchens).
Also, that piece was so obviously biased and ill-informed that anybody who's studied Sam Harris' works can pass it off without a second doubt. Harris rightfully passes it off as "the most idiotic and unbalanced response to my work I have ever come across."
See Profess. Coyne's response to it as well.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip - sure it was,... would you pls offer a SPECIFIC point, and not just rail as you here. Most pple I have corresponded with have found the article very insightful and beneficial- not everyone must agree with you or me as you seem to assume. Would also pls provide a ref for Prof. Coyne's response so that I can read it. Thanks
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
Which of Harris's articles have you read? How many of his books do you own? Give me an adequate thesis on his principles.
You don't seem to know much about Harris - just that because he's so caustic when criticizing religion (esp yours) that you automatically advocate whatever opposing views there are.
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress [dot] com/2011/05/01/a-scurrilous-attack-on-sam-harris/
l3lip 9 months ago
Sorry, but I think you digressed- I invited you make a specific criticism of an article which you appear to have randomly blasted. The article launches no personal attack Mr. Harris, but merely offers an assessment of his work (that's also known as the scientific method). Your apparent aggravation about the article so far makes no sense, since you seem to lack specific criticism. Certainly, if this article is as flawed as you imply, informed readers can determine that without UR mandating it
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
*I* digressed? Please - all of my thoughts (and then some) are articulated in Professor Coyne's response (which is why I told you to check him out). Did you? The whole purpose of me telling you to look at the article was because it states my views better than I can atm.
Speaking of digression, you still have not responded to the fatuous claim you made about all anti-theists being "Brights" and which of Harris' works you base your criticism on.
l3lip 9 months ago
@shieldsff
But since you clamor for a specific example so much, here goes: "the New Atheists provided little in their critique to disturb the architects and proselytizers of American empire: indeed, Hitchens and Harris asserted a fervent rationale for it."
- If you read Harris' works, he states he is glad for the death of OBL yet he calls the Iraq war a debacle ex post facto and that he doesn't see how the costs outweigh the benefits atm.
Only if you read them.
l3lip 9 months ago
OK, tell us- I understand that SM lauds the take down of OBL;however,did he not support the initial invasion of Iraq ? Does he not, in fact support the 'westernization' of middle eastern islamic regimes & their replacement with secularized, 'democratic' govts under the banner of converting muslims to unbelief ? As for Hitchens, you certainly intended to omit him from this altogether, There is do debate whatsoever U agree that Mr.HItchens WAS/is a wholesale cheer-leader for mid-east regime change
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
The first questions were rhetorical, btw. If you read *any* of Harris's works, you will find that he espouses nothing Lears claims he does.
Read his work instead of confirming your bias with somebody who criticizes him.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip - again, I have asked for a specific criticism of the article if you care to offer one- however, I do not think I am in need of any directives from you nor to I have to offer any justifications for my opinions, statements or postings. thanks
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
Moreover, you still have not responded to the fact that not all anti-theists claim themselves as "Brights"; perhaps you were as blinded then as you are now?
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip - thanks, but I'll pass... If YOU prefer to be referred to as an 'anti-theist' then you have it. Best regards.
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
*Sigh*
Just what I thought - no type of intelligent rebuttal, just a refusal to look at the opposing claims.
Fair enough - just what I'd expect from a bigot.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip - yup, that's how it typically goes with me when 1) no valid argument has been advanced, or
2) a statement is self-refuting -- feel free to pick your favorite
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
*Sigh*
I've laid out all the claims and spelled out my arguments for you. If you don't see that difference, then you don't see it.
l3lip 9 months ago
@l3lip - *Sigh*
you may want to look into counseling for all the sighing- generally that's a strong indication of depression and other mental issues. Since you don;t know me from the boss who pays your salary, do not hurl any invectives me such as bigot. No one cares about your petty biases, however superficial. If that's the extent of your language skills go find somebody else to write- go on., Bye by
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff
I've replied to all your challenges but you have yet to reply to *one* of mine. You've also failed to address any type of attack on your viewpoint - and you have the audacity to call my viewpoint a "petty bias"?
Christ, my 13 year old cousin could hold up a better in a debate than you.
l3lip 9 months ago
I do agree with a lot of what Hitchen's has to say.
It isn't hard to argue with him because I tend not to argue against facts I think hes was right on with a lot Henry Kis. and Mother Tresa, but this in no way means that I should conclude what he says here coincides with the truth especially when it comes to the man's megalomania. What he says here = Pay-Check!
War is wrong, it should never be offensive, and used only as a last resort.
natdrip 9 months ago
Hitchen's is wrong.
natdrip 9 months ago
@natdrip Only in an alternate universe where lies are truth and truth is falsehood.
It's very hard to argue against the man - not because of his sterling prose, but because he actually goes out and finds the facts for himself. I mean, this is a guy who is telling you he knows who Abu Nidal's employer is because he went out and inverviewed the terrorist in his Iraqi office.
Hitchens has balls the size of grapefruit, and an almost suicidal taste for the truth. You've got to admit to it.
DrCruel 9 months ago
i think they're both wrong. i don't believe state sponsored militarism/terrorism will lead to peace either.
Hitchens is a dumbass too. he thinks he knows everything and he doesn't. neither of these people are right... but would you expect to see truth on TV?
i'm down with Hitchen's views on religion though.
caseyforever 9 months ago
lets invade Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers came from there. Pathetic is this really the best the ant war left can do?
moh490234890238490 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me get this straight, the CIA puts that monster Saddam in power and armes him.
And now they're "liberating" Iraq from him?
In terms of Imperialism, we call this "divide and conquer"...
As for Christopher, I love his work against religion, but this Neocon hypocritic fearmongering side of him is really disgusting...
TheNamezor 9 months ago
I used to be in awe of Hitchens....that is before he turned into some neocon-apologetic with his shameless defense of Bush's imperialistic policies.
For the sake of your reputation Chris, stick to the god and existence debates for the remainder of your life. All the best.
hama666 9 months ago
@hama666 awesome comment, you are exactly right. Hitchens is a decent guy, but he has absolutely failed in this U-turn on his position supporting the Iraq war, his arguments have been very weak.
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 9 months ago
@hama666 I agree, but let's not forget Obama's imperialism either. Chris really embarrasses himself by using intelligently phrased versions of arguments given by the Bush administration. Like the Iraq Liberation Act (which did not call for invasion or occupation of any kind) or sheltering Al-Zarqawi (an assertion that was found completely baseless by the 2006 Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence)
warmongerpro 9 months ago
@warmongerpro Preaching to the choir, I completely agree about obamaa. The only difference is that very few 'respectable' analysts supported Bush's policies throughout the decade, whereas strangely its become almost taboo-like to voice criticism at Obama's military adventures.
Regardless, I'm still baffled at how a great mind like Hitchens would easily allow himself to buy Bush's pseudo-humanitarian crap. You could forgive him if he fell for Obama's deceptive yet charming rhetoric, but Bush?!
hama666 9 months ago
There's no evidence that Saddam knew of al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. That's based solely on Christopher's assumption. That's not something I would trust, considering how he called Saddam an "arab visionary" in the 70s.
warmongerpro 9 months ago
I've never heard Hitchens raise his voice.
TubeFreakification 9 months ago
@caucus100 I meant of course; Why would any atheist kill someone for being a theist?
OrionVulcan 9 months ago
@caucus100 Your black and white "is it or is it not religion" makes it hard for you to understand that Stalin did not kill people because he was an atheist, but because he was a communist. All you want to is to make your point about atheists killing people because they are atheists. This is just too dumb. Why would anyone kill someone for the sake of being atheist? It makes no sense. It's a question of morality, and this moral was there long before any of the monotheistic religions.
OrionVulcan 9 months ago
@OrionVulcan
no. it wasnt because he was a communist. you obviously dont know what a communist is. Stalin killed those people because of his totalitarian power hungry, and consolidation, nature.
nem700 9 months ago
@nem700 Sure, whatever. My point was merely that he did not kill people because he was an atheist. Now communists does not have a clean history when it comes to killing dissidents. I have no proof that Stalin was after religious people because he was a communist, it only seems logical. Now I guess you may claim that he was not a true communist, that may be right, but again that was not my main point.
OrionVulcan 9 months ago
@caucus100 Where is my contradiction? I tried to explain that Hitler probably saw religion as an asset, and above all he himself was religious and spiritual. Stalin was neither. You try to turn this discussion away from my main point about Stalin not murdering people because he was an atheist, in order to cover you own fallacies about this subject. Keep to the case, don't do the usual religious people cover up by attacking parts that has nothing to do with the real subject.
OrionVulcan 9 months ago
@caucus100 It is supposed to read "...connect the actions of Hitler to....".
OrionVulcan 10 months ago
@caucus100 So would you connect Hitler to Catholicism? Would you say he slaughtered Jews on the account of religion or on Naziism? To my mind Hitler was only smarter than Stalin, he new he could make good use of religion(he also allied with the muslims), especially since many Germans were Catholics at the time. If you explore the core differences between Naziism and communism, I'm sure an intelligent person like yourselves can figure out the underlying reasons here.
OrionVulcan 10 months ago
@caucus100 Just had to reply to this. Stalin did not go after religion because he was atheist. He did it because he was a communist, since religion is a competitor for the authority of the totalitarian state. Same goes for Mao in China. It is one of the more usual attack methods on atheists (usually on morality) from religious people, that these were atheists and murdered a lot of people. You never see an atheist run into a crowd shouting "There is no god!" and then blows up.
OrionVulcan 10 months ago