Perfectly delivered by Hitchens, as usual. He was true to his words throughout his life. His life was an ceaseless battle against all forms of totalitarianism.
I wish I had been able to see him live at a debate or a speech.
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
True, the West has not always been an angel. United Fruit in Central America, The British oil industry in the Middle East & Mexico, (Mexico ended up nationalizing the industry). & sundry events dealing chiefly with the Cold War. The Islamic threat, however is a non-negotioable global aspiration towards a universal Caliphate. Any apologist for this movement is, either with them or should have his/her head examined.
Well Mr.Hitchens got it wrong about the Indonesia and East Timor affair...but to point out about the bomb in Bali and how the extremist used referendum of east timor as their reason was absolutely correct...
Hitchens responds to the appeaser and apologist with great truth, and showed him up as a pathetic excuser for the putrid murderers of scum islam. We need more men like Hitchens to stand up for the West and its freedoms which we all have, because our fathers and forefathers fought and died for them.
@haTreesong and who will stand up to the west for all its war crimes, racism, and random wars it has with other countries? and even within it's own? All great empires all come to an end eventually, and Europeans and Americans time is long over due.
@ikcjjtt I live in the West and do not want to lose my freedom of speech, or to be told to follow islam on pain of death. So many islamic countries are dictatorships and the citizens do not enjoy the freedoms that we have. They want to turn the West into islamic states which equates to failure, oppression, bigotry, intolerance, and women being second class citizens. You might not like the west but all the technology and advances in science have came from the West, not from these islamic states.
"I'm going to fight these people, and every other theocrat all the way" You can't say he didn't keep his promise. Hitch's devotion to humanism was astounding
If you keep understanding what you want to understand and if you keep writing me the official history. I remind you the history is written by winners with paid historians. I do not have much time for that. You can write here pages. Read other side's stories from their sources than we can have a discussion.
I have started a new website for religious people to discuss there religious beliefs. I just thought I would send you a message to invite you to come have a look and see if you would like to join in some of the conversations.
I shiver and quake...but this time I think Hitchens did wasn't as superior as he usually is. In fact the man who asks the question talks about imperialism. Hitchens suggest to noble motives for those imperialists. They came to bring the christian faith but most: To harvest. To suck thse countries dry. And the poorer a country, the more religion gets a grip on them. So to totally wash our hands clean is overstating the fact. The conclusion though, i agree with, we must never surrender.
I actually somewhat agree with both sides of the argument. The person asking is wrong about the war being solely on our intervention and "imperialism" in the muslim world. Hitchens is wrong about it solely being about religious nut cases. I think the problem is both, our involvement and religious nut cases.
@MrFlibble2011 You really seem intent on me being gay. That's okay. Although I'd hardly call the passive-aggressive drivel you've spewed here "material". What was it you called me an ass for, in the first place? That part was slightly unclear - that is to say completely missing - in your first comment.
The war in Iraq may be a clash of civilizations, but it is mainly a war for profit and control of oil resources. I agree that Islam is fucked up in a lot of ways, but you certainly don't demonstrate your moral superiority by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. If anyone is an apologist in this clip, it's Hitchens who is an apologist for a totally unjust and immoral war.
@livinginlux slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people? My friend, do yourself a favour and stop reading pseudo - intellectual liberal "Anti - Imperialists" like Chomsky and pick up What's Left?: How the Left Lost it's Way by Nick Cohen and Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman. They will help you to understand why the invasion of Iraq had to take place sooner or later.
@livinginlux Iraq War was definitely an immoral war in many ways, same could be argued for Libya. I dislike Islamic totalitarianism and Jihadism. But I despise even more the pathetic self-hating Leftists who like to play the "blame the West and America first" game.
Huh. That seems like the kind of question I would've asked, only I'd said, "don't you think our policies towards them MULTIPLIED by both their religion AND OURS make things worse or as bad as they are? If we can't rid the world of religion, shouldn't we at LEAST treat them decently?
That was a valid question which should not have been answered by demagogy, Although Hitchens is a smart individual, he follows the official line anything deals with Moslems or Middle east, He well knows Al-qaida does not represent people in Middle East. Watch his behaviour in similar cases, He does not like believers but he especially hates Moslems. That makes him similar to faithful in a diffierent manner. That is sad.
@felistigris Just wondering, but how does having a special hatred for the (current) most violent, intolerant, repressive, destructive, and blatantly genocidal religion of our time, sad?
@deadmouse217 As an atheist It should probably be the last thing for me to defend any religion. However Islam is much nicer, and Christianity is much wilder than you think. The reason why most conflicts were around Islamic countries are: most of them poor, sitting on huge oil or mineral reserves and they do not have any big brother to save them from hordes of hyenas. If you will give me extremist moslems as an example, I would advice you to check Behring from Norway, Gabrielle Giffords fr USA.
@felistigris Please notice the (current) I know Christianity is extremely dangerous. I use the example of WWII Germany, it was obstinately christian. Still even the "moderate" Moslems stood up to protest protecting the life of a man who committed the grieves offence of drawing a cartoon. To use the example of WWII Germany again, is it so hard to see moslems agreeing on the need to collect "undesirables"?
@deadmouse217 it is already agreed, nobody want extremists. however, if even America cannot handle couple of stupid extremist groups, we cannot expect these powerless states who are not liked by their citizens can do much. As we cannot blame all Americans when extremists burn a mosque in america, we cannot blame all moslems for what their stupid brothers do. Hitchens should well aware of this and should have already have a mature approach like Richard Dawkins.
@felistigris I sometimes wonder if I am hard to understand. How many Christians who celebrated the nazi party taking away Jews to "control" them were extremists? How many of the thousands screaming for the blood of a cartoonist, spilling the blood of innocents around the world in protest of the civilized world not sending them the head of a man whose words offended them, how many of them and those who support and protect them are extremists?
@deadmouse217 Islam needs serious reformation, and the way it is applied in Middle-east ensures it will not get one. The problem is complicated. I agree with you that the ones who demanded the head of a cartoonist were all extremists, although the cartoons were also planned provocation. However, they still do not represent majority and we cannot blame all moslems for what they have done. We cannot blame whole group for the deeds of some. Colonialism well and alive, there you will see the devil.
@felistigris "Watch his behaviour in similar cases, He does not like believers but he especially hates Moslems. That makes him similar to faithful in a diffierent manner. That is sad."
That is probably because most informed people KNOW that Islam has a long and proven track record of Slavery (Trans Saharan Slave trade), oppression (Islamic Republic of Iran), genocide (Armenian genocide in Turkey) and Totalitarianism (Sharia Law), that dwarfs that of any other religion in recorded history.
@LordMalice6d9 Hmm, I strongly advice you to check Slave trade to Americas (Mega Slavery), Europe in Middle Ages and the Catholic church and its deeds to its own followers (Giga opression with faith), Check Native Americans and Genocides committed by French, Italian and English Empires in many parts of the world especially Northern Africa (genocides nobody can come even close by). Islam is much nicer if we go on that path. Regardless, all religions are totalitarian at the end.
What genocides committed by French, Italian and British Empires committed in Africa? You think those so called "genocides" are comparable to Japan's treatment of China? Pol Pots "agricultural reforms", USSR's political purges, Serbia's "cleansing" its neighbours, Late Ottomans, remove of Armenian's in Anatolian, the tribal genocides in Rwanda, and of course Nazi Germany.
You think those genocides don't "come even close" to those committed by the French Italian and British Empires?
@felistigris Now if you want to compare countries to religions.
Do you ever wonder why the whole of the middle east is "Arab"?
Don't you ever wonder what happened to the Berber's, native Egyptians, and Assyrians. Well of course we have a fairly good idea what the Islamic conquering armies did to them, beyond the obvious genocide, the simple practise was to kill any male over the age of 10, rape and keep the female, indoctrinate very young boys and make them fanatical warriors to continue war.
The Atlantic slave trade, is believed to have enslaved 12 million people during the late 16th till the early 18th century, by which point the majority of European countries had abolished slavery.
The Islamic world had continually used slavery from its beginning, more than a third of Ghana, Mali, Segou, Songhai and Sudanese peoples were taken as salves. The Islamic view of blacks as early as the 14th century was "the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery"
Beyond the enslavement of Africans, they also enslaved about 1-2 million European and US citizens, the US spent almost 20% of its annual income of random for their people.
While the Europeans and abolished slavery by the early 19th century, the Islamic world carried on for another hundred years.
The British actively attacked the slave trade, its believed they freed almost 150,000. All the Europeans countries have apologised, while the Arabic, has done and said nothing.
@Eralun My friend, You are reading one side's indoctrination on other side's. There is no native Americans left in America, No Incas, No Aztecs. Arabs did not invade Americas, Christians did. I look at results, not what is said. Search on you tube "French Atrocities in Algeria" watch whole 10 mins to c what was done in Algeria, make another search to c what else done in other colonized areas. Invasion is an invasion whether you call a place occupied or conquered. It is wild and bloody.
So out of all these "genocides" committed by the "French, Italian and English Empires" all you can say is, French Algeria, and some ramble about native Americans.
Well shall we begin?
First French Algeria, say I completely agree (good start for you!) what the French did there was terrible, they committed many atrocities, but not genocide. However the ALN also committed atrocities against those who dared not to join them.
@felistigris Many members of the ALN were also French colonist's, while there were many natives who wanted Algeria to remain French, indeed these Algerians left and moved to France following the end of the war.
I'd strongly advice you to actually look up what a genocide is before using it so lightly.
70% Mexico's population is mixed race (between natives and Spanish) with a further 10% considered "pure" native. To claim there are no Native Americans left is hilarious.
That is not to say that massive amounts of the population died, but they died through disease and plague, not through active Spanish genocides.
The Spanish colonists were ordered by Queen Isabella I, ordered that no Natives were to be harmed.
The only known "genocide" in South America (beyond what the Aztecs used to do) was Argentina's conquest of Patagonia during the mid-late 19th century.
Now one could argue the US did committed genocide against the Native North Americans, but it was more about getting their land then actively trying to "remove" them.
Despite what most people believe this was not a continuation, of British and French attitudes to the natives.
It took the French and British almost 150 years of bargaining to get the 13 colonies and Quebec. Of course there were occasional fighting between colonists and tribes. But both countries maintained very good relations with the natives, such as the Iroquois Nation, and Cherokee.
One of the many reasons for the American war of Independence, was the banning of moving onto natives lands.
During the US expansion, many Natives run to Canada for protection, the 1812 war was in part fought because of Britain's continued support for the Natives.
Most of the remaining Native North American's now live in Canada.
So after all that, you still can't name a "genocide" committed by the "French, Italian and English Empires".
lol. Defensive are we? I wasn't going to expand on it because I made it in passing. If you want me to qualify my statement I'd be happy to do so.
The question that was posed to Hitchens was a fair one. It challenged Hitchens' uncharacteristically simplistic and dichotomous world view regarding the "war" between Islam and "civilization." It raised the legitimate question of whether our presence and actions in the area is the major impetus for their anti-western hostility.
It makes me sad to see Hitchens take such a nasty and, quite frankly, demagogic, stance. Hitchens twisted a legit question about the harm of western imperialism into a strawman about surrendering to Islam. I agree, he could have answered x50 better. As for your comments, a lot of messed up stuff goes on in Islamic countries but you fall into the same black and white trap that Hitchens did when you use blanket statements like “the muslims”, “the west”, “us” “them” etc…
@MarshalNey13 Do you want to expand on that, or are you just tossing unfounded accusations in the hopes that it will stick despite the lack of evidence for your position?
I think he made an excellent point that the muslims will always find a way to blame it on the west. The example presented was a perfect example: they're angry at us because we prevented them from committing genocide.
It’s amazing how people are still convinced that this is all about current foreign policy issues when in fact it has been going on (interrupted only by truces) since the 7th century. Pick up a book a people and study history and study why Bin Laden talked so much about the Crusades and Andalucia. It has nothing to do with Western presence; it has to do with reviving the old Caliphate.
@l3lip Easy. It springs from the same source as irrational apologism for Islam does: lack of proper knowledge on the subject.
A theocratic system which systematically discriminates -and often openly persecutes- homosexuals, women, aposthates and non-believers is miscast as a victim. It's not unlike the way white supremacists miscast anti-racism as anti-white.
Islamic apologism borders on shameless hypocricy for this reason. If Islamophobia exists, then so too there is Islamophilia.
Sorry. Hitchens didn't even answer the question posed to him. He was asked specifically about the history of Western colonialism and American neo-imperialism and the untold horror and suffering that they brought about. Far many more innocent people have been killed because of American neo-imperialism than even the vilest jihadi terrorist can claim. Also, it is nothing but sheer fantasy that our soldiers fighting useless, counterproductive wars protect our liberties.
@nyscholartist The audiance member posing the question asserted, quite unfoundedly, that Islamic terrorism and violence was simply a backlash to Western imperielism. Hitchens soundly corrected him, and rightfully so. I agree Western imperialism is a concept to be admonished and duly called out for its effects, but asserting that Islamic terrorism is purely a reaction to this is demonstrably false. It is not 'post hoc' justification, it is motivation.
@ianman6 It is true that not all terrorism in the name of Islam is a reaction to Western imperialism, but the majority of the operations carried out by the global jihad movement are exactly that. And in the occupied Palestinian territories, they are a reaction to settler colonialism practiced by the Israelis and supported by the US. The larger problem, however, with Hitchens is that he never considers the ills of Western neo-imperialism.
@nyscholartist Please provide evidence to suggest that 'the majority' of the Jihad movement is reactionary and not self-motivated. It is likely a combination of the two, Western imperialism simply exacerbating and accelarating a pre-existing enmity. Islamic imperialism is just as pernicious, given the chance. The audiance is suggesting that pulling out of conflict and 'leaving them alone' will somehow get them to do the same. Are you agreeing with that? Because it wouldn't.
@ianman6 Further, Hitchens has build a large chunk of his career upon admonishing Western imperialism. He condemns Kissinger and others precisely for their imperialist intentions and activities, and with unreserved harshnes. He accuses them, rightfully see, of being war criminals. So he does condemn Western imperialism.
@ianman6 It's not clear what you mean by "self-motivated." Political movements--jihadi or non-jihadi--do not exist in a historical vacuum. They are responses to perceived crises and threats with very clearly delineated political objectives. There is hardly any evidence for a "pre-existing enmity" in the case of al-Qaeda and many of the jihadi movements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan arose AFTER and in response to American intervention in those places.
@ianman6 If there was any "pre-existing enmity," then it was very clearly related to the fact that the United States has supported dictatorships in countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan whilst hypocritically singing the praises of democracy. That too is a political grievance. Religion is used to justify the methods of these political movements and grounds their aims in a metaphysical narrative.
@ianman6 There is no evidence to suggest that people blew themselves and others up in the name of Islam simply because they read a verse in the Qur'an which told them to do so. If that were the case, then Muslims would have been blowing themselves up very regularly and frequently over the past 1400 years. Yet they tend to do so in places where they are oppressed politically (i.e. Palestine) and/or attacked militarily (i.e. Iraq).
@ianman6 Bin Laden said very clearly in one of his interviews that he wasn't interested in attacking Sweden, only the United States and its allies. Why? Because he didn't care that the Swedes have premarital sex, love gays, and celebrate nude beaches, even though these things would offend his conscience. He cared only about the source of the suffering and oppression of millions of Muslims in parts of the Islamic world.
@ianman6 That's why he planned 9/11. You are engaging in nothing but conjecture when you say that "Islamic imperialism is just as pernicious, given the chance." It had its chance many centuries ago, it was indeed pernicious in many ways, but it is no longer relevant to what's happening today. Today, America is the global superpower, not Islam. You also engage in conjecture when you say that if we pulled out, terrorism wouldn't stop.
@ianman6 It's impossible to say that all terrorism would stop, but it is reasonable to suppose that it would decrease dramatically in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of these jihadi terrorists say that they are fighting against the American presence/intervention in their lands. Again, movements don't operate in a historical or political vacuum and people don't just read a holy book and then decide to blow people up the next day.
@ianman6 There is also no equivalence between the ills of American imperialism and the global jihad movement. All of the mujahideen in the world since the middle of the 20th century have killed thousands. But American imperialism has caused the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people around the world. In Nicaragua, in the Philippines, in Vietnam, in Chile, in El Salvador, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the list goes on. I urge you to read the work of Noam Chomsky for further details.
You would not have wanted the soviet union dominating the planet the U.S was the lesser evil & what happened in latin america occurred because they did not want another soviet satellite emerging in their own backyard again, Afghanistan was brought to ruins & left shattered by the war that began when the red army intervened to prevent the afghan socialists from being defeated by counter revolutionaries, NATO's arrival decades later is a further consequence of that.
@Obasiliasfilosofos I was not arguing that the Soviet Union would have been a better alternative to US imperialism. At any rate, such an argument would be based solely on counterfactual conjecture. I was also not referring to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but the American occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 against the majority of surveyed world opinion (except in the US, Israel, and India), which advocated the extradition of the suspects, not wholesale invasion and regime change. Nice try.
My point was that in Nicaragua,Chile, El Salvador the only alternative to putting up Augusto Pinochet & such would to be to let a KGB puppet gov take over those countries & turn the tide of the cold war in the USSR favor,Thus risking a much worse global catastrophe down the road, Its true that those decisions have had repercussions but don't pretend that its all black & white by labeling it imperialism.
The regime change in Afghanistan was brought by the afghan rebels not NATO
@Obasiliasfilosofos That is nothing but American imperialist propaganda. In fact, any serious historian of the Cold War knows that the threat of "international communism" was never the primary reason for intervention. The US intervened in those places where it had a strategic or energy interest or perceived a threat to any of these interests. This is why it supported Pinochet's coup against the DEMOCRATICALLY elected president and didn't care about his innumerable human rights abuses.
@Obasiliasfilosofos There's no evidence that the Soviets planned to take over Chile. For all of its flaws and cruelty (against its own people, against the Afghans, etc.), it generally said nothing to countries aligned with it about how to conduct their internal politics. Their record doesn't even begin to compare with the United States' brazenly imperialist interventions. And it is pure conjecture to say if we hadn't supported Pinochet there would have been a "much worse global catastrophe."
@ianman6 He appears to be too enamored by the alleged superiority of Western civilization to all other cultures. In addition, he was wrong about the war in Iraq (which was a disaster in every sense of the term) and is patently wrong to suggest that our soldiers "guard us whilst we sleep." Soldiers may have the noble intentions of doing so, but they are fighting immoral, counterproductive wars which are only making us less safe as they produce the next generation of terrorists who despise us.
Christopher Hitchens is not a decent person. He is just another Israel supporter; he never said a word about Israel crimes against the 7 million starving, bare footed Palestinian refugees who were driven out of their homes and living in a tin shakes all over the world since 1948. Or the crimes committed by UK & USA in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Her is a list of decent people though.. (See the deference):
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I thought this man is smart. Now I am sure he is just another ignorant. He want to fight for the rights of women in Islam!!! Did any Muslim woman complain to him? No. Did he ever red the quran? ?. No .what an ignorant. !!!
@Munzer1977 I think a Saudi woman may once have told Hitchens that she'd like to be allowed to drive a car in her own country. Or was it that she said she wanted the right to vote in her own country? Something like that, anyway.
@Munzer1977 This is not the issue of this video. Sam Harris have a answer for you: What is freedom in a society where woman are beaten for adultery, girls are murdered for honor crimes and made responsible for their own rape. Who can respect that kind of a society? No matter whats a dominant religion of that society.
@Munzer1977 Honor murder is a mark of Islamic society's, this do not exists in Jewish religious circles. There are other negatives, but physical violence is not one of them.
@Munzer1977 1.I am a free person and i can argue about anything, i have not allegiance to religious demagogs of any color, no religion, be it Islam or Judaism is not holy for me at any point. 2. If there is no connection between Islam and Culture, there couldn't be Islamic culture, that my conclusion. 3. My wife cheating? i will ignore the Meddle Eastern custom of spilling acid or stoning and simply divorce.
@Munzer1977 I am criticizing sociological phenomena that woman are treated as second class citizens such in Saudi Arabia, when they are forbidden to leave the house alone. You can interpret those laws as protection and caring of woman but that will be true if your world view are Patriarchy and sees woman as recipients of right and not givers of rights. In that kind of society, males typically allows themselves more than they should. The dark side of Patriarchy is physical domination.
@Mishkafofer Again you are making erroneous assumption, you specking on behalf of the Saudi women by saying are treated as second class citizens. Can you prove that?? Although it’s a culture issue but can you prove that they are treated as second class citizens.?
@Munzer1977 If Saudi woman were free as the man and decided to live according to Islam there wouldn't be a reason for laws specifically addressing female behavior, am i wrong? Or you will claim that the these created for their own protection?
@Mishkafofer Peace. I have to catch my prayer….sorry. Honestly; I feel sad for you and for the west…I have no farther comments on that, because from now on anything I will say it will be about your society and believe me you don’t want to hear it. Especially in this month I am not suppose to say foul words.
@Munzer1977 The proof that women in Saudi are treated appallingly is overwhelming. A woman has to dress like a bin liner. If she dares to show her face in public the penalty is severe. Women who commit adultery can be stoned to death, they are not allowed to go out without a man present. Homosexuality carries the death penalty and so does apostasy. These laws are evil and oppressive.
@roac7777 Creating lies about Muslims and Islam is not accepted as a civilized way of communication anymore.
You either indulge with a decent subjective conversation or stay away. Your false judgment means nothing to me or to any Muslim. If you seek knowledge ask and be decent and truthful first.
So try again, and ask me about Saudi women. You welcome
@Munzer1977 What he said were not lies. That is how women are treated in Saudi Arabia. I am there 3-4 months a year in total for the past 6 years. It is barbaric and archaic, it does not deserve respect simply for being another 'tradition' or 'culture'. It deserves condemnation.
@ianman6 If you frequently travel to Arabia then you should know that Saudi women spend the entire summer in Paris and London, they use custom Gucci, custom Channel and custom Maserati’s with drivers.
But again; Islam is one thing while culture is something else.
@Munzer1977 Some women do, some women don't. What is your point? I was indeed talking about Saudi Arabian culture, not Islam in general. But Saudi Arabia has Sharia law, which is purely Islamic and irrespective of culture. In Saudi Arabia, what I see are women who are completely covered save for their eyes, have been berated harshly for answering an innocuous question of mine, and are not allowed unnescorted by a male. Plain and simple.
@Munzer1977 Do not insult my intelligence, women are treated appallingly in Saudi, Somalia, Iran and most other Islamic countries. In Saudi, Iran and Somalia they have to cover their hair and face in order to not be raped, tortured or stoned to death. A 64 year old woman in Saudi received 60 lashings of the whip just because she spoke to her bread delivery man. The penalty for a single woman for having a private sex life is stoning to death.
@roac7777 Sir. You sound like and an Israeli noise box, You are insulting my culture and faith, can’t you see that?. This is not a way of intercultural or intellectual argument. Well I am sorry if you feel this way.
@Munzer1977 I have every right to insult your faith, it is fascism in all but name. I am certainly not Israeli or Jewish in any shape or form, just a human being who hates fascism, jihadists and crusaders. I believe in science, reason and secular law. I am a Darwinian evolutionist and an atheist.
@Munzer1977 Additional: You have the gall to say that I am a liar. It is because I am civilized that I express my concerns regarding the theocratic and somewhat fascist ideology of Islam and it's treatment of my fellow primates.
@Munzer1977 You keep saying it is women's 'choice' to cover themselves thouroughly and that forcing them to undress in public would be fascism. Who said anything about forcing? The only thing being forced upon them is extreme austerity through Sharia law. Tell me, if a woman wanted to willingly where jeans and a T-shirt in the market, and not be escorted by a man, can she? If not, THAT is fascism, sir.
@ianman6 You have to ask them first, they surely disagree with you on that, Muslim women knows better about what or what not to wear. Jeans are names you created in your societies, we don’t take guidance from your side, and we don’t take guidance from any side. This the reason your bible is not anymore a bible because of the input of smart people like yourself.
@Munzer1977 They would disagree with me that they are not allowed? No, they wouldn't. It is illegal. They would be stoned. Regardless of how they've been brought up to accept it, doesn't mean it is therefore acceptable. The only thing being forced is from Islamic Saudi culture, not from the West. And what does the Bible have to do with this? It's not 'mine', nor the West's. It is a religious book of Christianity, and I don't care for it either.
@ianman6 God told them to dress modestly, and they taking God’s words seriously because it’s the same God who gave them their rights. No one forced them to so and I mean NO ONE. But I have to agree with you that some studies took sharea to unbearable level.
@Munzer1977 Yes someone is forcing them. If they do not dress according to the law, they will be beaten and stoned. That is coercion, by any defnition. Invoking the name of God does nothing to justify it. These laws are man made, not the commandments of a fictionaly character. Don't pass the blame from those who should take responsibility.
@ianman6 I cannot think of any women ever beaten or stoned throughout the Islamic history. The Prophet said women should dress modestly while they can still show their faces and hands (Hijab). The Saudis went wrong when they forbid the showing of the Face and the hands (Niqab). So the Niqab is a saudi tradition. Either ways nobody force them. And Allah knows best
@Munzer1977 Liar...women in these aforementioned Islamic countries do not have any choice. Women in the free west dress how they wish to, they do not go around naked, but nor do they have to walk around looking like bin liners. Men in the free west can control themselves. Sex between consenting adults is normal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, single or married it is their basic fundamental human right. Under Islam there is no freedom of choice.
@Munzer1977 I have seen what it is like for Saudi women, I do not need to interview any. Your statement is childish. Any intelligent person reading my comments agrees with me. Look up the laws of Saudi and most Islamic countries and take off your blinkers. No doubt you are an Islamic fundamentalist shill.
reverse discrimination and support for their message of hate... its ironic that muslims can kill the inocent but the west cant do anything... what the h#ll is going on has the world been put on its head with these clowns asking the dumb stupid questions.... the response perfect well done
Lies and deceit. Two words to describe what Hitchens said on this video.
Throwing acid on the faces of unveiled women.Hitchens takes individual incidents which do not have any relation to Islamic teachings, and blames Islam for it. 90% of pakistani women do not wear the face veil.
The 82nd airborne 'guards' Americans while they sleep, by putting thousands of Iraqis and Afghans to sleep. Western powers granted East Timor its freedom, but what about the countries they have invaded and occupied?
Hitchens makes the same erroneous assumption that we went into Iraq to spread freedom & democracy, not to control the worlds second largest oil reserves.
While I agree with him on most issues of religion, I think he stubbornly sticks to this issue which he is most obviously on the wrong side.Saddam was a secular autocrat who fought against theocratic Iran.Saddam was a dick, but he was not an islamist & we did not invade to spread democracy.
@rubberbaby00 I was in Iraq '06-'08. Civilian attorney working with the Iraq Gov. on legal reform. Do I know the innermost feelings and motives of Bush/Rumsfeld & a few others? No. Never met them. What I can say is, during my time there, in the countless meetings I had with U.S. State Dep., military, aid organizations (USAID & DFID), Iraqi gov., Iraqi civilians etc. the constant, obsessive focus of every conversation was: How can we turn this into a functioning, democratic society.
We may never be able to thoroughly answer "why" we invaded.However, we have a responsibility to future generations in future wars to answer if the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the "correct" thing to do.How else can we prevent the same mistakes from happening again?
Sure, a soldier in the field should not question their commanders orders.
But here at home, we have that luxury and should use it at every opportunity so that future soldiers aren't put into that situation again.
@rubberbaby00 Agreed. I'll admit that both the people and the media were mind-blowingly casual about the whole thing. I was also genuinely surprised/shocked that it tended to be the more christian/Jesus-following types that seemed especially ... relaxed about wanting evidence before we invade a country, water boarding, Abu Ghraib etc. I'm an atheist but it still surprises me that so many in the Jesus-crowd are so trigger-happy.
@rubberbaby00 One of the best things people can do today is to spend LESS time making claims on the feelings & motives behind an action and MORE time assessing whether the action itself makes sense. I love my iphone. Do I know the exact motives of Jobs & the creators of this device? No. Maybe the inventors made it purely to make mountains of money. Maybe to impress their girlfriends. Maybe Job's ENTIRE motive was to show his dad that he is better than him. Is it THAT relevant?
(continued) One can certainly argue that the invasion was wrong. I respect that. I'm a bit agnostic myself. What I am tired of is the notion that one simply claims a) to know the REAL motives behind an act b) that these motives are bad and c) therefore this ends the conversation.
Note that in criminal trials in the west, the MOTIVE for e.g. a murder is not even a legal element of the crime. There are very solid reasons for this.
Hell yeah Hitchens! I love to hate you sometimes, but this was marvelous! Hitchens, you nailed this, a triple hitter home fucking run. Could not agree with this man more on this issue.
@shcnoozlebop The people who view atheists (at least the literate, well-reasoned and purpose-driven atheists, not to be mistaken with the intellectually lazy ones who are as dangerous as the religious zealots btw) as the ones closest to absolute human reason, wherein clear thinking and pure rational thought actually leads one closer to God, (since it is the closest to actual free will/conscious choice) despite being unaware of Him.
This has been flagged as spam show
Bhali bomb has all the hallmarks of yet another CIA false flag op.
TODB0AMER 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bahli bomb has all the hallmarks of yet another CIA false flag op.
TODB0AMER 2 days ago
Bahli bomb has all the hallmarks of yet another CIA false flag op.
TODB0AMER 2 days ago
Perfectly delivered by Hitchens, as usual. He was true to his words throughout his life. His life was an ceaseless battle against all forms of totalitarianism.
I wish I had been able to see him live at a debate or a speech.
fastballonly 2 days ago
hitchen is da man.
scada67 2 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 days ago
True, the West has not always been an angel. United Fruit in Central America, The British oil industry in the Middle East & Mexico, (Mexico ended up nationalizing the industry). & sundry events dealing chiefly with the Cold War. The Islamic threat, however is a non-negotioable global aspiration towards a universal Caliphate. Any apologist for this movement is, either with them or should have his/her head examined.
mrlouis1421 3 days ago
22 people didnt listen at all
MeepullStewray 6 days ago
wow perfect again Hitch! But then there is no rationality with a muslim. just read the koran.
StyngRay1 6 days ago
@StyngRay1 but you do understand he thinks their is no rationality in any religion ?
ozzyrules66 5 days ago
Well Mr.Hitchens got it wrong about the Indonesia and East Timor affair...but to point out about the bomb in Bali and how the extremist used referendum of east timor as their reason was absolutely correct...
TheLalaGOD 1 week ago
owns chomba womba chomsky
90fitzgerald09 1 week ago
KICKED ASS in the most brilliant way a sophisticated man can.
sujitphatak 1 week ago 7
For a moment, because the video is so dark, it looked like Christopher's face was floating in the air like the Great Wizard of Oz.
Xoletta 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 weeks ago
Hitchens responds to the appeaser and apologist with great truth, and showed him up as a pathetic excuser for the putrid murderers of scum islam. We need more men like Hitchens to stand up for the West and its freedoms which we all have, because our fathers and forefathers fought and died for them.
haTreesong 3 weeks ago
@haTreesong and who will stand up to the west for all its war crimes, racism, and random wars it has with other countries? and even within it's own? All great empires all come to an end eventually, and Europeans and Americans time is long over due.
ikcjjtt 5 days ago
@ikcjjtt I live in the West and do not want to lose my freedom of speech, or to be told to follow islam on pain of death. So many islamic countries are dictatorships and the citizens do not enjoy the freedoms that we have. They want to turn the West into islamic states which equates to failure, oppression, bigotry, intolerance, and women being second class citizens. You might not like the west but all the technology and advances in science have came from the West, not from these islamic states.
haTreesong 5 days ago
@haTreesong that doesnt answer my question. but it doesnt matter, the west will reap what it soes. karma is a bitch.
ikcjjtt 5 days ago
@ikcjjtt Karma is a bitch which is why the Islamic countries are reaping the whirlwind.
Xantheus07 4 days ago
"I'm going to fight these people, and every other theocrat all the way" You can't say he didn't keep his promise. Hitch's devotion to humanism was astounding
SlangForEyesores 3 weeks ago 13
If you keep understanding what you want to understand and if you keep writing me the official history. I remind you the history is written by winners with paid historians. I do not have much time for that. You can write here pages. Read other side's stories from their sources than we can have a discussion.
felistigris 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have started a new website for religious people to discuss there religious beliefs. I just thought I would send you a message to invite you to come have a look and see if you would like to join in some of the conversations.
Thanks Dan :)
religiousdebates.co.uk
YouTutorials0 4 weeks ago
I shiver and quake...but this time I think Hitchens did wasn't as superior as he usually is. In fact the man who asks the question talks about imperialism. Hitchens suggest to noble motives for those imperialists. They came to bring the christian faith but most: To harvest. To suck thse countries dry. And the poorer a country, the more religion gets a grip on them. So to totally wash our hands clean is overstating the fact. The conclusion though, i agree with, we must never surrender.
MindsEye2009 4 weeks ago
stupid fuckin Islamist appeaser living in the West. he should go live in Saudi
tarun1982 1 month ago
I actually somewhat agree with both sides of the argument. The person asking is wrong about the war being solely on our intervention and "imperialism" in the muslim world. Hitchens is wrong about it solely being about religious nut cases. I think the problem is both, our involvement and religious nut cases.
ilovelani69 1 month ago
Always nice to see some people like oppression, just not oppressive religion of course...
123ggn 1 month ago
Fuck! Burned!
mouthyweasel 1 month ago
Hitchens U'Akbar!!!!!!
MegaBanjaluka 1 month ago 4
@MegaBanjaluka HAHAHA!!!!!!
lumpheadthump 1 month ago
Love u hitchens
CyprusHot 2 months ago 26
Comment removed
MrFlibble2011 2 months ago
@MrFlibble2011 You really seem intent on me being gay. That's okay. Although I'd hardly call the passive-aggressive drivel you've spewed here "material". What was it you called me an ass for, in the first place? That part was slightly unclear - that is to say completely missing - in your first comment.
batlin 2 months ago
r.i.p chris, he certainly put the idiot in his place.
serappia 2 months ago
This Marxist apologist would volunteer to be first to the chopping block to prove how tolerant and non-judgmental he is.
elsquibbs 2 months ago
Hitchens is the man
ds201049 2 months ago
2:20 "and I can't recommend it to you highly" ... enough. Highly _enough_.... I think he meant?
batlin 2 months ago
@batlin Asshat
MrFlibble2011 2 months ago
@MrFlibble2011 Suck my asshat.
batlin 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrFlibble2011 2 months ago
The war in Iraq may be a clash of civilizations, but it is mainly a war for profit and control of oil resources. I agree that Islam is fucked up in a lot of ways, but you certainly don't demonstrate your moral superiority by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. If anyone is an apologist in this clip, it's Hitchens who is an apologist for a totally unjust and immoral war.
livinginlux 3 months ago
@livinginlux
the only time ive disagreed with him is on iraq
timewilltell7 3 months ago
@livinginlux slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people? My friend, do yourself a favour and stop reading pseudo - intellectual liberal "Anti - Imperialists" like Chomsky and pick up What's Left?: How the Left Lost it's Way by Nick Cohen and Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman. They will help you to understand why the invasion of Iraq had to take place sooner or later.
Bha11spawn 1 month ago
@livinginlux Iraq War was definitely an immoral war in many ways, same could be argued for Libya. I dislike Islamic totalitarianism and Jihadism. But I despise even more the pathetic self-hating Leftists who like to play the "blame the West and America first" game.
LordMalice6d9 1 month ago 3
could someone explain what are they discussing here? thanks:D
FuBarracuda 3 months ago
Huh. That seems like the kind of question I would've asked, only I'd said, "don't you think our policies towards them MULTIPLIED by both their religion AND OURS make things worse or as bad as they are? If we can't rid the world of religion, shouldn't we at LEAST treat them decently?
macgeek2004 3 months ago
That was a valid question which should not have been answered by demagogy, Although Hitchens is a smart individual, he follows the official line anything deals with Moslems or Middle east, He well knows Al-qaida does not represent people in Middle East. Watch his behaviour in similar cases, He does not like believers but he especially hates Moslems. That makes him similar to faithful in a diffierent manner. That is sad.
felistigris 3 months ago
@felistigris Just wondering, but how does having a special hatred for the (current) most violent, intolerant, repressive, destructive, and blatantly genocidal religion of our time, sad?
deadmouse217 3 months ago
@deadmouse217 As an atheist It should probably be the last thing for me to defend any religion. However Islam is much nicer, and Christianity is much wilder than you think. The reason why most conflicts were around Islamic countries are: most of them poor, sitting on huge oil or mineral reserves and they do not have any big brother to save them from hordes of hyenas. If you will give me extremist moslems as an example, I would advice you to check Behring from Norway, Gabrielle Giffords fr USA.
felistigris 3 months ago
@felistigris Please notice the (current) I know Christianity is extremely dangerous. I use the example of WWII Germany, it was obstinately christian. Still even the "moderate" Moslems stood up to protest protecting the life of a man who committed the grieves offence of drawing a cartoon. To use the example of WWII Germany again, is it so hard to see moslems agreeing on the need to collect "undesirables"?
deadmouse217 3 months ago
@deadmouse217 it is already agreed, nobody want extremists. however, if even America cannot handle couple of stupid extremist groups, we cannot expect these powerless states who are not liked by their citizens can do much. As we cannot blame all Americans when extremists burn a mosque in america, we cannot blame all moslems for what their stupid brothers do. Hitchens should well aware of this and should have already have a mature approach like Richard Dawkins.
felistigris 3 months ago
@felistigris I sometimes wonder if I am hard to understand. How many Christians who celebrated the nazi party taking away Jews to "control" them were extremists? How many of the thousands screaming for the blood of a cartoonist, spilling the blood of innocents around the world in protest of the civilized world not sending them the head of a man whose words offended them, how many of them and those who support and protect them are extremists?
deadmouse217 3 months ago
@deadmouse217 Islam needs serious reformation, and the way it is applied in Middle-east ensures it will not get one. The problem is complicated. I agree with you that the ones who demanded the head of a cartoonist were all extremists, although the cartoons were also planned provocation. However, they still do not represent majority and we cannot blame all moslems for what they have done. We cannot blame whole group for the deeds of some. Colonialism well and alive, there you will see the devil.
felistigris 3 months ago
@felistigris "Watch his behaviour in similar cases, He does not like believers but he especially hates Moslems. That makes him similar to faithful in a diffierent manner. That is sad."
That is probably because most informed people KNOW that Islam has a long and proven track record of Slavery (Trans Saharan Slave trade), oppression (Islamic Republic of Iran), genocide (Armenian genocide in Turkey) and Totalitarianism (Sharia Law), that dwarfs that of any other religion in recorded history.
LordMalice6d9 1 month ago
@LordMalice6d9 Hmm, I strongly advice you to check Slave trade to Americas (Mega Slavery), Europe in Middle Ages and the Catholic church and its deeds to its own followers (Giga opression with faith), Check Native Americans and Genocides committed by French, Italian and English Empires in many parts of the world especially Northern Africa (genocides nobody can come even close by). Islam is much nicer if we go on that path. Regardless, all religions are totalitarian at the end.
felistigris 1 month ago
@felistigris
What genocides committed by French, Italian and British Empires committed in Africa? You think those so called "genocides" are comparable to Japan's treatment of China? Pol Pots "agricultural reforms", USSR's political purges, Serbia's "cleansing" its neighbours, Late Ottomans, remove of Armenian's in Anatolian, the tribal genocides in Rwanda, and of course Nazi Germany.
You think those genocides don't "come even close" to those committed by the French Italian and British Empires?
Eralun 1 month ago
@felistigris Now if you want to compare countries to religions.
Do you ever wonder why the whole of the middle east is "Arab"?
Don't you ever wonder what happened to the Berber's, native Egyptians, and Assyrians. Well of course we have a fairly good idea what the Islamic conquering armies did to them, beyond the obvious genocide, the simple practise was to kill any male over the age of 10, rape and keep the female, indoctrinate very young boys and make them fanatical warriors to continue war.
Eralun 1 month ago
@felistigris
The Atlantic slave trade, is believed to have enslaved 12 million people during the late 16th till the early 18th century, by which point the majority of European countries had abolished slavery.
The Islamic world had continually used slavery from its beginning, more than a third of Ghana, Mali, Segou, Songhai and Sudanese peoples were taken as salves. The Islamic view of blacks as early as the 14th century was "the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery"
Eralun 1 month ago
@felistigris
Beyond the enslavement of Africans, they also enslaved about 1-2 million European and US citizens, the US spent almost 20% of its annual income of random for their people.
While the Europeans and abolished slavery by the early 19th century, the Islamic world carried on for another hundred years.
The British actively attacked the slave trade, its believed they freed almost 150,000. All the Europeans countries have apologised, while the Arabic, has done and said nothing.
Eralun 1 month ago
@felistigris I realise I've gone on for quite abit, but this is the last I promise.
But please tell me what Genocides the "French, Italian and English Empires" committed.
Eralun 1 month ago
@Eralun My friend, You are reading one side's indoctrination on other side's. There is no native Americans left in America, No Incas, No Aztecs. Arabs did not invade Americas, Christians did. I look at results, not what is said. Search on you tube "French Atrocities in Algeria" watch whole 10 mins to c what was done in Algeria, make another search to c what else done in other colonized areas. Invasion is an invasion whether you call a place occupied or conquered. It is wild and bloody.
felistigris 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
Well done on ignoring all my points.
So out of all these "genocides" committed by the "French, Italian and English Empires" all you can say is, French Algeria, and some ramble about native Americans.
Well shall we begin?
First French Algeria, say I completely agree (good start for you!) what the French did there was terrible, they committed many atrocities, but not genocide. However the ALN also committed atrocities against those who dared not to join them.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris Many members of the ALN were also French colonist's, while there were many natives who wanted Algeria to remain French, indeed these Algerians left and moved to France following the end of the war.
I'd strongly advice you to actually look up what a genocide is before using it so lightly.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
Now the matter of the Native Americans.
70% Mexico's population is mixed race (between natives and Spanish) with a further 10% considered "pure" native. To claim there are no Native Americans left is hilarious.
That is not to say that massive amounts of the population died, but they died through disease and plague, not through active Spanish genocides.
The Spanish colonists were ordered by Queen Isabella I, ordered that no Natives were to be harmed.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
The only known "genocide" in South America (beyond what the Aztecs used to do) was Argentina's conquest of Patagonia during the mid-late 19th century.
Now one could argue the US did committed genocide against the Native North Americans, but it was more about getting their land then actively trying to "remove" them.
Despite what most people believe this was not a continuation, of British and French attitudes to the natives.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
It took the French and British almost 150 years of bargaining to get the 13 colonies and Quebec. Of course there were occasional fighting between colonists and tribes. But both countries maintained very good relations with the natives, such as the Iroquois Nation, and Cherokee.
One of the many reasons for the American war of Independence, was the banning of moving onto natives lands.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
During the US expansion, many Natives run to Canada for protection, the 1812 war was in part fought because of Britain's continued support for the Natives.
Most of the remaining Native North American's now live in Canada.
So after all that, you still can't name a "genocide" committed by the "French, Italian and English Empires".
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris
You can't name a "genocide" but I can.
The only thing that comes close to a "genocide" committed by those nations, was Tasmanian.
The British to their eternal shame allowed convicts and their guards to treat the natives (who had already been decimated by plague) like "sport".
By the time mainland Britain heard of the practise and put a stop to it, it was too late the last know native died in 1905.
Again please name a genocide committed by any of the 3 Empires you mentioned.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@felistigris Don't be silly. Many people came to America as colonisers not as armies.
irishxxkelt 5 days ago
@felistigris dude you got wrecked by Eralun.
arana001 3 weeks ago
@arana001 Sorry for going on for so long, but this stupid ignorance makes my blood boil.
Eralun 3 weeks ago
@sleazybtd
lol. Defensive are we? I wasn't going to expand on it because I made it in passing. If you want me to qualify my statement I'd be happy to do so.
The question that was posed to Hitchens was a fair one. It challenged Hitchens' uncharacteristically simplistic and dichotomous world view regarding the "war" between Islam and "civilization." It raised the legitimate question of whether our presence and actions in the area is the major impetus for their anti-western hostility.
MarshalNey13 4 months ago
@MarshalNey13
It makes me sad to see Hitchens take such a nasty and, quite frankly, demagogic, stance. Hitchens twisted a legit question about the harm of western imperialism into a strawman about surrendering to Islam. I agree, he could have answered x50 better. As for your comments, a lot of messed up stuff goes on in Islamic countries but you fall into the same black and white trap that Hitchens did when you use blanket statements like “the muslims”, “the west”, “us” “them” etc…
MarshalNey13 4 months ago 3
One of Hitchen's weakest responses. It was an evasive bit of demagogy and grandstanding.
MarshalNey13 4 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Do you want to expand on that, or are you just tossing unfounded accusations in the hopes that it will stick despite the lack of evidence for your position?
I think he made an excellent point that the muslims will always find a way to blame it on the west. The example presented was a perfect example: they're angry at us because we prevented them from committing genocide.
sleazybtd 4 months ago
Of course Hitchens is right. Hitchens is the man, and certainly better read than 99.9999999% of people on YouBoobs.
spec24 5 months ago
logic is god
paginipro 5 months ago
It’s amazing how people are still convinced that this is all about current foreign policy issues when in fact it has been going on (interrupted only by truces) since the 7th century. Pick up a book a people and study history and study why Bin Laden talked so much about the Crusades and Andalucia. It has nothing to do with Western presence; it has to do with reviving the old Caliphate.
44warjunkie 5 months ago 49
@44warjunkie
Really *nothing* about western foreign policy? Isn't that a bit... Islamophobic?
l3lip 5 months ago
@l3lip please give me a break, Islamophobic is the new racist. Just a word to silence people.
44warjunkie 5 months ago
@l3lip Islamophobia does not exist.
GluttonForSex 5 months ago 5
@GluttonForSex
... are you serious dude?
l3lip 5 months ago
@l3lip Yes.
GluttonForSex 5 months ago
@GluttonForSex
How do you explain *irrational* attacks on Muslims in the US then? Your viewpoint doesn't correlate with reality.
l3lip 5 months ago
@l3lip Easy. It springs from the same source as irrational apologism for Islam does: lack of proper knowledge on the subject.
A theocratic system which systematically discriminates -and often openly persecutes- homosexuals, women, aposthates and non-believers is miscast as a victim. It's not unlike the way white supremacists miscast anti-racism as anti-white.
Islamic apologism borders on shameless hypocricy for this reason. If Islamophobia exists, then so too there is Islamophilia.
GluttonForSex 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@GluttonForSex
"Easy. It springs from the same source as irrational apologism for Islam does: lack of proper knowledge on the subject."
Oh, so you *are* conceding that Islamophobia exists.
That was easy.
l3lip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GluttonForSex
"Easy. It springs from the same source as irrational apologism for Islam does: lack of proper knowledge on the subject."
Oh, so you *are* conceding that Islamophobia exists.
That was easy.
l3lip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GluttonForSex
"Easy. It springs from the same source as irrational apologism for Islam does: lack of proper knowledge on the subject."
Oh, so you *are* conceding that Islamophobia exists.
That was easy.
l3lip 5 months ago
@44warjunkie BOOM! Transalation: FUCK ISLAM! Burn it, Ban it....Forget it.
akuaaron 5 months ago
Sorry. Hitchens didn't even answer the question posed to him. He was asked specifically about the history of Western colonialism and American neo-imperialism and the untold horror and suffering that they brought about. Far many more innocent people have been killed because of American neo-imperialism than even the vilest jihadi terrorist can claim. Also, it is nothing but sheer fantasy that our soldiers fighting useless, counterproductive wars protect our liberties.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@nyscholartist You must be one of the termites Chris Hitchens was talking about.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 Right. When you don't have an argument, resort to name-calling. That's just lame and immature. You haven't addressed the issue at hand.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@nyscholartist I see you have reserved this special time to write to me to humiliate yourself.
roac7777 6 months ago
@nyscholartist The audiance member posing the question asserted, quite unfoundedly, that Islamic terrorism and violence was simply a backlash to Western imperielism. Hitchens soundly corrected him, and rightfully so. I agree Western imperialism is a concept to be admonished and duly called out for its effects, but asserting that Islamic terrorism is purely a reaction to this is demonstrably false. It is not 'post hoc' justification, it is motivation.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 It is true that not all terrorism in the name of Islam is a reaction to Western imperialism, but the majority of the operations carried out by the global jihad movement are exactly that. And in the occupied Palestinian territories, they are a reaction to settler colonialism practiced by the Israelis and supported by the US. The larger problem, however, with Hitchens is that he never considers the ills of Western neo-imperialism.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@nyscholartist Please provide evidence to suggest that 'the majority' of the Jihad movement is reactionary and not self-motivated. It is likely a combination of the two, Western imperialism simply exacerbating and accelarating a pre-existing enmity. Islamic imperialism is just as pernicious, given the chance. The audiance is suggesting that pulling out of conflict and 'leaving them alone' will somehow get them to do the same. Are you agreeing with that? Because it wouldn't.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 Further, Hitchens has build a large chunk of his career upon admonishing Western imperialism. He condemns Kissinger and others precisely for their imperialist intentions and activities, and with unreserved harshnes. He accuses them, rightfully see, of being war criminals. So he does condemn Western imperialism.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 It's not clear what you mean by "self-motivated." Political movements--jihadi or non-jihadi--do not exist in a historical vacuum. They are responses to perceived crises and threats with very clearly delineated political objectives. There is hardly any evidence for a "pre-existing enmity" in the case of al-Qaeda and many of the jihadi movements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan arose AFTER and in response to American intervention in those places.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 If there was any "pre-existing enmity," then it was very clearly related to the fact that the United States has supported dictatorships in countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan whilst hypocritically singing the praises of democracy. That too is a political grievance. Religion is used to justify the methods of these political movements and grounds their aims in a metaphysical narrative.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 There is no evidence to suggest that people blew themselves and others up in the name of Islam simply because they read a verse in the Qur'an which told them to do so. If that were the case, then Muslims would have been blowing themselves up very regularly and frequently over the past 1400 years. Yet they tend to do so in places where they are oppressed politically (i.e. Palestine) and/or attacked militarily (i.e. Iraq).
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 Bin Laden said very clearly in one of his interviews that he wasn't interested in attacking Sweden, only the United States and its allies. Why? Because he didn't care that the Swedes have premarital sex, love gays, and celebrate nude beaches, even though these things would offend his conscience. He cared only about the source of the suffering and oppression of millions of Muslims in parts of the Islamic world.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 That's why he planned 9/11. You are engaging in nothing but conjecture when you say that "Islamic imperialism is just as pernicious, given the chance." It had its chance many centuries ago, it was indeed pernicious in many ways, but it is no longer relevant to what's happening today. Today, America is the global superpower, not Islam. You also engage in conjecture when you say that if we pulled out, terrorism wouldn't stop.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 It's impossible to say that all terrorism would stop, but it is reasonable to suppose that it would decrease dramatically in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of these jihadi terrorists say that they are fighting against the American presence/intervention in their lands. Again, movements don't operate in a historical or political vacuum and people don't just read a holy book and then decide to blow people up the next day.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 There is also no equivalence between the ills of American imperialism and the global jihad movement. All of the mujahideen in the world since the middle of the 20th century have killed thousands. But American imperialism has caused the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people around the world. In Nicaragua, in the Philippines, in Vietnam, in Chile, in El Salvador, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the list goes on. I urge you to read the work of Noam Chomsky for further details.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@nyscholartist
You would not have wanted the soviet union dominating the planet the U.S was the lesser evil & what happened in latin america occurred because they did not want another soviet satellite emerging in their own backyard again, Afghanistan was brought to ruins & left shattered by the war that began when the red army intervened to prevent the afghan socialists from being defeated by counter revolutionaries, NATO's arrival decades later is a further consequence of that.
Obasiliasfilosofos 6 months ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos I was not arguing that the Soviet Union would have been a better alternative to US imperialism. At any rate, such an argument would be based solely on counterfactual conjecture. I was also not referring to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but the American occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 against the majority of surveyed world opinion (except in the US, Israel, and India), which advocated the extradition of the suspects, not wholesale invasion and regime change. Nice try.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@nyscholartist
My point was that in Nicaragua,Chile, El Salvador the only alternative to putting up Augusto Pinochet & such would to be to let a KGB puppet gov take over those countries & turn the tide of the cold war in the USSR favor,Thus risking a much worse global catastrophe down the road, Its true that those decisions have had repercussions but don't pretend that its all black & white by labeling it imperialism.
The regime change in Afghanistan was brought by the afghan rebels not NATO
Obasiliasfilosofos 6 months ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos That is nothing but American imperialist propaganda. In fact, any serious historian of the Cold War knows that the threat of "international communism" was never the primary reason for intervention. The US intervened in those places where it had a strategic or energy interest or perceived a threat to any of these interests. This is why it supported Pinochet's coup against the DEMOCRATICALLY elected president and didn't care about his innumerable human rights abuses.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos There's no evidence that the Soviets planned to take over Chile. For all of its flaws and cruelty (against its own people, against the Afghans, etc.), it generally said nothing to countries aligned with it about how to conduct their internal politics. Their record doesn't even begin to compare with the United States' brazenly imperialist interventions. And it is pure conjecture to say if we hadn't supported Pinochet there would have been a "much worse global catastrophe."
nyscholartist 6 months ago
@ianman6 He appears to be too enamored by the alleged superiority of Western civilization to all other cultures. In addition, he was wrong about the war in Iraq (which was a disaster in every sense of the term) and is patently wrong to suggest that our soldiers "guard us whilst we sleep." Soldiers may have the noble intentions of doing so, but they are fighting immoral, counterproductive wars which are only making us less safe as they produce the next generation of terrorists who despise us.
nyscholartist 6 months ago
Christopher Hitchens is not a decent person. He is just another Israel supporter; he never said a word about Israel crimes against the 7 million starving, bare footed Palestinian refugees who were driven out of their homes and living in a tin shakes all over the world since 1948. Or the crimes committed by UK & USA in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Her is a list of decent people though.. (See the deference):
Dr. Norman Finkelstein
Dr. Noam Chomsky
Senator Ron Paul
George Galloway..etc
Munzer1977 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
I thought this man is smart. Now I am sure he is just another ignorant. He want to fight for the rights of women in Islam!!! Did any Muslim woman complain to him? No. Did he ever red the quran? ?. No .what an ignorant. !!!
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 I think a Saudi woman may once have told Hitchens that she'd like to be allowed to drive a car in her own country. Or was it that she said she wanted the right to vote in her own country? Something like that, anyway.
jomper 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 This is not the issue of this video. Sam Harris have a answer for you: What is freedom in a society where woman are beaten for adultery, girls are murdered for honor crimes and made responsible for their own rape. Who can respect that kind of a society? No matter whats a dominant religion of that society.
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Mishkafofer I fully agree. Jews still do these disgraceful crimes, but again we cannot say all Jews are bad.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 Honor murder is a mark of Islamic society's, this do not exists in Jewish religious circles. There are other negatives, but physical violence is not one of them.
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Mishkafofer You are not in a position to speak about Islam…nobody is
Culture has nothing to do with Islam. And a question: what would you do if you find your wife cheating on you??
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 1.I am a free person and i can argue about anything, i have not allegiance to religious demagogs of any color, no religion, be it Islam or Judaism is not holy for me at any point. 2. If there is no connection between Islam and Culture, there couldn't be Islamic culture, that my conclusion. 3. My wife cheating? i will ignore the Meddle Eastern custom of spilling acid or stoning and simply divorce.
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Mishkafofer But sir, the Acid story is not part of the Islamic Culture. The Prophet of Islam never heard of Acid nor did he recommend it to us.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 I am criticizing sociological phenomena that woman are treated as second class citizens such in Saudi Arabia, when they are forbidden to leave the house alone. You can interpret those laws as protection and caring of woman but that will be true if your world view are Patriarchy and sees woman as recipients of right and not givers of rights. In that kind of society, males typically allows themselves more than they should. The dark side of Patriarchy is physical domination.
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Mishkafofer Again you are making erroneous assumption, you specking on behalf of the Saudi women by saying are treated as second class citizens. Can you prove that?? Although it’s a culture issue but can you prove that they are treated as second class citizens.?
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 If Saudi woman were free as the man and decided to live according to Islam there wouldn't be a reason for laws specifically addressing female behavior, am i wrong? Or you will claim that the these created for their own protection?
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Mishkafofer Peace. I have to catch my prayer….sorry. Honestly; I feel sad for you and for the west…I have no farther comments on that, because from now on anything I will say it will be about your society and believe me you don’t want to hear it. Especially in this month I am not suppose to say foul words.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 I have no problem to hear critique. Don't be afraid we are not the Royal Saudi family or Amir of Qatar, i can take it, honestly.
Mishkafofer 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 The proof that women in Saudi are treated appallingly is overwhelming. A woman has to dress like a bin liner. If she dares to show her face in public the penalty is severe. Women who commit adultery can be stoned to death, they are not allowed to go out without a man present. Homosexuality carries the death penalty and so does apostasy. These laws are evil and oppressive.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 Creating lies about Muslims and Islam is not accepted as a civilized way of communication anymore.
You either indulge with a decent subjective conversation or stay away. Your false judgment means nothing to me or to any Muslim. If you seek knowledge ask and be decent and truthful first.
So try again, and ask me about Saudi women. You welcome
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 What he said were not lies. That is how women are treated in Saudi Arabia. I am there 3-4 months a year in total for the past 6 years. It is barbaric and archaic, it does not deserve respect simply for being another 'tradition' or 'culture'. It deserves condemnation.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 If you frequently travel to Arabia then you should know that Saudi women spend the entire summer in Paris and London, they use custom Gucci, custom Channel and custom Maserati’s with drivers.
But again; Islam is one thing while culture is something else.
Read sir.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 Some women do, some women don't. What is your point? I was indeed talking about Saudi Arabian culture, not Islam in general. But Saudi Arabia has Sharia law, which is purely Islamic and irrespective of culture. In Saudi Arabia, what I see are women who are completely covered save for their eyes, have been berated harshly for answering an innocuous question of mine, and are not allowed unnescorted by a male. Plain and simple.
ianman6 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 Do not insult my intelligence, women are treated appallingly in Saudi, Somalia, Iran and most other Islamic countries. In Saudi, Iran and Somalia they have to cover their hair and face in order to not be raped, tortured or stoned to death. A 64 year old woman in Saudi received 60 lashings of the whip just because she spoke to her bread delivery man. The penalty for a single woman for having a private sex life is stoning to death.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 Sir. You sound like and an Israeli noise box, You are insulting my culture and faith, can’t you see that?. This is not a way of intercultural or intellectual argument. Well I am sorry if you feel this way.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 I have every right to insult your faith, it is fascism in all but name. I am certainly not Israeli or Jewish in any shape or form, just a human being who hates fascism, jihadists and crusaders. I believe in science, reason and secular law. I am a Darwinian evolutionist and an atheist.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 If your science doesn’t lead you to God then worthless whatever your are doing
Munzer1977 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Munzer1977
"If your science doesn’t lead you to God then worthless whatever your are doing"
You would put your God over any Science even if it contradicts the truth? Would the truth then be worthless?
BeBoBli 3 months ago
@Munzer1977 Additional: You have the gall to say that I am a liar. It is because I am civilized that I express my concerns regarding the theocratic and somewhat fascist ideology of Islam and it's treatment of my fellow primates.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 As I said earlier; it’s their choice, we cannot force them to undress in public. That would be an act of fascism
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 You keep saying it is women's 'choice' to cover themselves thouroughly and that forcing them to undress in public would be fascism. Who said anything about forcing? The only thing being forced upon them is extreme austerity through Sharia law. Tell me, if a woman wanted to willingly where jeans and a T-shirt in the market, and not be escorted by a man, can she? If not, THAT is fascism, sir.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 You have to ask them first, they surely disagree with you on that, Muslim women knows better about what or what not to wear. Jeans are names you created in your societies, we don’t take guidance from your side, and we don’t take guidance from any side. This the reason your bible is not anymore a bible because of the input of smart people like yourself.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 They would disagree with me that they are not allowed? No, they wouldn't. It is illegal. They would be stoned. Regardless of how they've been brought up to accept it, doesn't mean it is therefore acceptable. The only thing being forced is from Islamic Saudi culture, not from the West. And what does the Bible have to do with this? It's not 'mine', nor the West's. It is a religious book of Christianity, and I don't care for it either.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 God told them to dress modestly, and they taking God’s words seriously because it’s the same God who gave them their rights. No one forced them to so and I mean NO ONE. But I have to agree with you that some studies took sharea to unbearable level.
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 Yes someone is forcing them. If they do not dress according to the law, they will be beaten and stoned. That is coercion, by any defnition. Invoking the name of God does nothing to justify it. These laws are man made, not the commandments of a fictionaly character. Don't pass the blame from those who should take responsibility.
ianman6 6 months ago
@ianman6 I cannot think of any women ever beaten or stoned throughout the Islamic history. The Prophet said women should dress modestly while they can still show their faces and hands (Hijab). The Saudis went wrong when they forbid the showing of the Face and the hands (Niqab). So the Niqab is a saudi tradition. Either ways nobody force them. And Allah knows best
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 Liar...women in these aforementioned Islamic countries do not have any choice. Women in the free west dress how they wish to, they do not go around naked, but nor do they have to walk around looking like bin liners. Men in the free west can control themselves. Sex between consenting adults is normal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, single or married it is their basic fundamental human right. Under Islam there is no freedom of choice.
Stop trying to kid me or yourself.
roac7777 6 months ago
@roac7777 Your argument is baseless; you have to interview at least 5 Saudi women, so we may believe you
Munzer1977 6 months ago
@Munzer1977 I have seen what it is like for Saudi women, I do not need to interview any. Your statement is childish. Any intelligent person reading my comments agrees with me. Look up the laws of Saudi and most Islamic countries and take off your blinkers. No doubt you are an Islamic fundamentalist shill.
roac7777 6 months ago
This is the definition of Hitchslap.
GmanNetworks 6 months ago
"bloody well don't do it in my name!..."
veryfirstBiz 6 months ago
reverse discrimination and support for their message of hate... its ironic that muslims can kill the inocent but the west cant do anything... what the h#ll is going on has the world been put on its head with these clowns asking the dumb stupid questions.... the response perfect well done
MrLoudmouthspeaker 7 months ago
Lies and deceit. Two words to describe what Hitchens said on this video.
Throwing acid on the faces of unveiled women.Hitchens takes individual incidents which do not have any relation to Islamic teachings, and blames Islam for it. 90% of pakistani women do not wear the face veil.
The 82nd airborne 'guards' Americans while they sleep, by putting thousands of Iraqis and Afghans to sleep. Western powers granted East Timor its freedom, but what about the countries they have invaded and occupied?
achinoy 7 months ago
LOVE Chris Hitchen, well put.
IHeartDenver 7 months ago
Hitchens makes the same erroneous assumption that we went into Iraq to spread freedom & democracy, not to control the worlds second largest oil reserves.
While I agree with him on most issues of religion, I think he stubbornly sticks to this issue which he is most obviously on the wrong side.Saddam was a secular autocrat who fought against theocratic Iran.Saddam was a dick, but he was not an islamist & we did not invade to spread democracy.
rubberbaby00 7 months ago
@rubberbaby00 I was in Iraq '06-'08. Civilian attorney working with the Iraq Gov. on legal reform. Do I know the innermost feelings and motives of Bush/Rumsfeld & a few others? No. Never met them. What I can say is, during my time there, in the countless meetings I had with U.S. State Dep., military, aid organizations (USAID & DFID), Iraqi gov., Iraqi civilians etc. the constant, obsessive focus of every conversation was: How can we turn this into a functioning, democratic society.
BlackLabelSlushie 7 months ago
@BlackLabelSlushie
We may never be able to thoroughly answer "why" we invaded.However, we have a responsibility to future generations in future wars to answer if the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the "correct" thing to do.How else can we prevent the same mistakes from happening again?
Sure, a soldier in the field should not question their commanders orders.
But here at home, we have that luxury and should use it at every opportunity so that future soldiers aren't put into that situation again.
rubberbaby00 7 months ago
@rubberbaby00 Agreed. I'll admit that both the people and the media were mind-blowingly casual about the whole thing. I was also genuinely surprised/shocked that it tended to be the more christian/Jesus-following types that seemed especially ... relaxed about wanting evidence before we invade a country, water boarding, Abu Ghraib etc. I'm an atheist but it still surprises me that so many in the Jesus-crowd are so trigger-happy.
Not to mention the neocons.
BlackLabelSlushie 7 months ago
@rubberbaby00 One of the best things people can do today is to spend LESS time making claims on the feelings & motives behind an action and MORE time assessing whether the action itself makes sense. I love my iphone. Do I know the exact motives of Jobs & the creators of this device? No. Maybe the inventors made it purely to make mountains of money. Maybe to impress their girlfriends. Maybe Job's ENTIRE motive was to show his dad that he is better than him. Is it THAT relevant?
BlackLabelSlushie 7 months ago
(continued) One can certainly argue that the invasion was wrong. I respect that. I'm a bit agnostic myself. What I am tired of is the notion that one simply claims a) to know the REAL motives behind an act b) that these motives are bad and c) therefore this ends the conversation.
Note that in criminal trials in the west, the MOTIVE for e.g. a murder is not even a legal element of the crime. There are very solid reasons for this.
BlackLabelSlushie 7 months ago
Is that the old guy from the young turks?
MikeEmery9 7 months ago
Hell yeah Hitchens! I love to hate you sometimes, but this was marvelous! Hitchens, you nailed this, a triple hitter home fucking run. Could not agree with this man more on this issue.
WDTripps 7 months ago
how does anyone stay religious after listening to hitchens?
shcnoozlebop 7 months ago 30
@shcnoozlebop The people who view atheists (at least the literate, well-reasoned and purpose-driven atheists, not to be mistaken with the intellectually lazy ones who are as dangerous as the religious zealots btw) as the ones closest to absolute human reason, wherein clear thinking and pure rational thought actually leads one closer to God, (since it is the closest to actual free will/conscious choice) despite being unaware of Him.
tastytasters 7 months ago
@shcnoozlebop same reason they deny the necessity of the iraq war
zackhanscom 5 months ago