Christopher Hitchens versus Ritter - Iraq War debate part 1

[KrGsMrNKusinagi0]

Ritter stated Iraq maintained 10 percent of its WMD capacity

[abuliberalee]

Incoherent babble. This isn't even going to be a contest.

[deluxmatty01]

@PlanetOfTheAtheist yea and not too many people like the Jews over there too, but we all know thats not just down to politics dont we?

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero and how dare you imply that, like the accounts of genocide in Bosnia and Sierra Leone I gave, the US (and presumably UK) are also committing the same crimes overseas simply because innocent people are caught up in the cross fire and killed. I have friends in AG, are you implying they’re on the same level as Milosevic’s murderes?? You think what we're doing is on a par with ethnic fucking cleansing??? I’m so fucking sick of this left wing moral equivalence shit.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 I didn't say it was ethnic cleansing, what we're doing is actually the highest of international crimes, that of aggression, the thing for which many Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremburg. I don't care if you have friends in whatever AG is. I have friends and family in the military, but me having military loved ones can't magically change the nature of the law. The US committed serious crimes in Vietnam. If states should act to stop serious crimes, should the Soviet Union have acted?

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 The intention of an action should have little to no bearing on its moral character. Whether bombing a wedding has noble intentions or not, it's wrong if it will kill a lot of people. The moral character should be determined by the likely consequences and whether the actor is enlightened to them. The US knew invading Afghanistan would cut off food and aid to about 5-6 million people, and that it would hugely increase anti-American sentiment and terrorism.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero well first of all I dont even know if those stats are correct. Second of all the well being of AG's is greatly improved by forcing the Taliban out. The Helmand province now has the start of health clinics for women, open markets and the freedom to walk veiled or unveiled without the threat of being murdered. The US and UK do everything they can to limit casulties and provide food and treatment for the villagers. Like I said more people suffer if the cancer is left in place

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 They had those under the Communist regime. Did you support the Soviet invasion to keep that regime stable?

[deluxmatty01]

@PlanetOfTheAtheis What are you going on about? Yes it’s been messy but are you actually saying the Iraqi's are better off under Sadame? Well go and live under someone like that and then tell me that shite. Not solved anything? Stabilised an oil rich volatile region? Freed Kurds from the threat of extinction? Sowed the seeds of democracy? Removed Sadame’s nuclear and biological programmes? Ended theft of state assets? Removed a party that modelled itself of the Nazis? WAKE UP

[nocturnezero]

I oppose the war in Iraq because I think aggression is wrong, not to mention illegal. This is the beginning and end of all discussions about the issue. There are nuances, but that is the position I take.

[deluxmatty01]

@PlanetOfTheAtheist So what would you of done then?..leave the Iraqi's under a man whose alias name was 'The Butcher of Bagdad? You actually think that taking the anti war movements well trodden route of pacifism would have yielded LESS death and oppression for the Iraqi's than risking an invasion and forced removal of one of the worst dictators in history?? Come on mate seriously, get real.

[deluxmatty01]

I've never understood why so many prominent anti war apologists seem to think as soon as you oppose the US and UK you are justified in siding with the opposition or at least sympathizing with them? I cant believe Ritter said he'd prefer to live under Sadame than the US occupation!! Why cant you left wingers grow the fuck up and stop acting like petulant teenagers. Your oil arguments have turned out to be disproven now, as with every other wild accusation. You know FUCK ALL about warfare!

[NorthCitySider]

@deluxmatty01

You dumbass, Scott Ritter is a Republican. Go fuck off now.

[deluxmatty01]

@NorthCitySider What difference does that make?...and yes I realise that as I took notice of what was said at the start of the debate. Clearly you didnt take notice of what I said at the start of my entry when I used the phrase 'anti war apologists' which clearly Ritter is. Just because I went on to attack left wingers doesnt mean I infer he's anything but a republican does it? So I'll stay here, and YOU can go fuck off and crawl back to your Northside. Northside of Wankerville that is.

[NorthCitySider]

@deluxmatty01

What?

[batvette]

good god Ritter you are full of shit. The joint resolution specified democracy for the iraqis. It specified human rights. gassing of the kurds. all the thoings he says it doesn't. Bush said? look up his UN speech of Sept 2002. Ritter has an audience of the willingly ignorant like himself, and his arguments are as dishonest as that he would accuse Bush of but Bush did not lie. Ritter is a whore, plain and simple. what a loser. probably flipping burgers at mcdonalds today.

[batvette]

Scott Ritter, Nov. 2002:

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Iraq is capable of reconstituting a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks.

"I believe Iraq will seek to reconstitute a militarized nerve agent that will be used in a last ditch defense of Baghdad, and I think the Iraqi government's efforts to acquire significant stockpiles of atropine are an indication that this is the direction that Saddam Hussein is heading," Ritter said on CNN's "Crossfire."

[athabascka]

Scott Ritter: only Americans matter, fuck the rest of the world. No morality beyond our borders.

[deluxmatty01]

@athabascka EXACTLY...the anti war perspective totally betrays a socialist principle I actually agree with: solidarity with the oppressed. From day one they objected to the war because they dont like the concept of a capitalist superpower with big weapons, end of. BUT take those weapons and put them in the hands of the untrained amateur and by some kind of moral alchemy the act of armed intervention is suddenly justifiable.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 If you believe in solidarity with the oppressed, you should stand in solidarity with 70% of Iraqis - probably 80% of non-Kurdish Iraqis - and oppose the brutal US occupation. The Iraqi people don't want to be subjugated by Hussein's thugs or US troops. They want self-determination.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero No I’m sorry sir that’s nonsense. You can’t in a million years equate the US as brutal as SH's thugs over a few incidents. Any Iraqi hatred is more down to a) the bullshit propaganda Iraqi's and many middles eastern peoples are fed in their countries regarding the US (and Jews for that matter) like Lybia, like the Arab Emirates, like Iran etc and B) the fact that for six years the strategy in Iraq didn’t work and people got pissed off.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Oh, sorry. I didn't realize they couldn't be trusted to handle their own problems. That's a good idea, to assume they're fed propaganda to justify our own military conquest. I'd love to see any evidence for that, because it's a huge claim, and a pretty outlandish one - to automatically assume that people opposing a violent occupation in their country are just brainwashed by propaganda.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero Trust them to handle their own problems?? I suppose the Rwandans should have been left to take care of themselves too then? OH THAT’S RIGHT THEY WERE AND A MILLION OF THEM WERE WIPED OUT!! Should of we left the Bosnian's to 'handle their own problems' and not bombed S.M's forces, and just watch as thousands of poor peasants get wiped out by an organised, brutal military? Maybe Sierra Leone should have been left to its own devices?

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 You're celebrating democracy and then telling the Iraqis that they're two brainwashed to be a democratic country. That's what I was saying. You can't give all this wonderful talk about how great democracy is then, when an issue comes up with which you disagree but which is supported by a huge majority of Iraqis, oppose it on the grounds that they don't know what they're talking about or that they're propagandized.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero No no Im not saying they are completely propogandised. Im saying that negative public opinion is down to more than just one thing. Public opinion reflects peoples feelings, and because nation building is so messy and difficult and dangerous and fraught with accusations of ulterior motives etc etc dont be surprised when Iraqi's express anti US sentiment when shit goes wrong. If it was all sorted in a year the vibe would of been good

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 That doesn't explain how you can hold the contradictory beliefs of a) Iraq should be democratic and b) we shouldn't withdraw immediately. If Iraq is to be ruled by its people, priority one is to get foreign forces out because that's what it's people believe. So what if they're influenced by the results? That doesn't change their beliefs.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero No contradiction at all. It’s for the very reason of having a successful democracy that the US and UK SHOULDNT leave straight away.. that the point!! Why does the left just not get this simple axiom? Why is it so many in the anti war movement opposed to violence, and knowing what will happen to Iraqis if we leave too soon still say that immediate withdrawal is the most moral option we have? Should we leave AG even though the farmers tell troops what will happen to them if we do?

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 So they should have a democracy, except in the field of what many of them consider to be the most important issue, which is the presence of occupatory foreign troops? I just want to make sure I understand democracy right. Democracy doesn't mean doing what a majority want on issues the majority finds important? Democracy doesn't mean popular rule?

[OffTheGlass87]

@nocturnezero

No, the United States is not a democracy of popular vote. It's a representative democracy. The USA is a republic. And to the republic, for which it stands Not, for the democracy. Two different things. The USA is a federal-constitutional-republi­c. That means states rights and an overall constitution for the country. The constitution didn't detail the 1000's a possibilities for this and that law. If it's not in the constitution, it's up to the states people to decide.

[nocturnezero]

@OffTheGlass87 Republics are democratic.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Should the Soviet Union have withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately because their invasion was illegal and their occupation brutal? I'm sure the Soviet Union had people just like yourself and Hitchens, saying that we can't withdraw too soon because the mujahideen will take over the country and reign with an iron fist and a power vacuum will form and all that stuff. Maybe some farmers even asked them to stay. Were you warning the Soviet Union not to withdraw too hastily?

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Fewer than 1% of Iraqis believe the US presence is increasing their security, according to the British Ministry of Defense. 82% want them to leave. Are they not the most qualified to speak for their own situation?

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero...and bush hailed in a better light than he was. Normally the justification for something like an invasion of this kind is formed in the results. Bad results "Bush lied thousands died', good results and the Iraqi's would probably of given Bush the same praise as the Bosnian Muslims gave Clinton and Blair. Im not saying nothing they say therefore has any validity, Im saying its not just down to public content or discontent.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Should the Soviet Union have intervened to stop the US from wiping out hundreds of thousands-1.5 milion poor peasants with a brutal, organized military and a campaign of agricultural destruction?

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero and maybe the Afghans should be left to somehow magically free themselves from brutal religious nutters? GET REAL!! Dont tell me that US policy over there is the sole reason for hatred for infidels. Americans and Jews are hated for many reasons than politics. In Saudi Arabia school text books teach Jews are a race of 'pigs and monkeys'. In Iran people are made to swear they'll give their blood for Palestine. People dont kill themselves and other randoms purely over politics.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 If the US hadn't supported terrorists to begin with, we wouldn't have to free them from brutal religious nutters. We liked the violent fundamentalists when they were serving our interests, but as soon as we don't need them we invade, install a client regime, hinder humanitarian aid, burn one of their most important economic staples (poppy), and then tell them we're there to give them democracy while bombing their weddings and mosques.

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero also...When the US came they were greeted with lines of people happy that for once someone cared about them enough to kick out one of the most brutal rulers in history. Iraq has the start of a democracy; it’s elections arent under duress. The Kurds are free and the threat of genocidal extinction is no more. Yes it’s been messy but welcome to the concept of nation building.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Maybe they have the start of a democracy. I doubt it. Freedom House says "Iraq is not an electoral democracy. Although it has conducted meaningful elections, political participation and decision-making in the country remain seriously impaired by sectarian and insurgent violence, widespread corruption, and the influence of foreign powers."

[deluxmatty01]

@nocturnezero Like I said its a start, its messy and troubled. So was re-installing democracy in Germany after hitler. Does that make WW2 wrong? Or defeating Communism and installing democracy simply because its beset with difficulties. Elections arent perfect no, but dont tell me it was bette than under Sadame please!! They're on the right path and would of been on a better one if the 55 nations that voted for force removal of sadame had got involved and not fucked around.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 Iraq has the worst corruption rating in the MidEast. Their infrastructure is destroyed. Oil production has been reduced. The elections were held under occupation conditions, which seriously hinders their credibility, and, more importantly, the imperial powers have yet to respect the main Iraqi demanded held by a huge majority of the population - for us to leave. We've made some important steps in that direction, but maintain the huge mercenary presence, tens of thousands strong.

[nocturnezero]

@deluxmatty01 When the US forces LEFT the streets were rocked with celebration. I don't see how an incidental celebration demonstrates anything. I would celebrate Saddam's ouster, too. Anyone would. Its elections are under huge duress. The duress of occupation.s

[deluxmatty01]

It makes no sense to refrain from intervention due to risk of temporary suffering in favour of abstaining and ENSURING death and suffering on a longer timescale!!

[100busynumbers]

Scott Ritter has just been convicted and sentenced to seven years (as of April 2011) for unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation. Jus sayin'.

[moh490234890238490]

@100busynumbers That doesn't invalid his argument even though i don't think his arguments holds any water. That just makes him a pervert.

[HippieDrummer06]

@PlanetOfTheAtheist It's doubtful. And if we did do that, did you ever consider what it would do to our economy? It wouldn't be pretty. Btw there many monarchies and authoritarian governments who do meet certain rights criteria, not all of them are horrible countries. Dictatorships are pretty horrible though.

[poolopis01]

@PlanetOfTheAtheist I always get a kick out of insane people who suspend their rationality to embrace a populist antiwar movement, akin to flocking to a modern celebrity. There is no dictatorship in the world, including the former Iraqi authoritarian regime, that should be safe. The only justification needed for a war is that the country in question is not a democratic republic.

[nem700]

@poolopis01

isnt democracy also a form of dictatorship? a dictatorship by the majority upon the minority.

[moh490234890238490]

@nem700 no the system is made so that the majority doesn't crush the minority. We called them rights. If you think democracy is so bad do you have a better alternative to it?

[deluxmatty01]

@nem700 grasping at straws a tad I feel there matey....

[lanamal]

@PlanetOfTheAtheist You sound smart.

[AnotherMasterMind]

For those of you who haven't heard this conversation before, get ready for the best debate on Iraq of your life.

[617whitey]

All war's are racket's. Even if that is not how they start that is how they end up.

[HippieDrummer06]

I think Hitchens is brilliant when it comes to Religion and morality, and that's why I don't understand why in the hell he is supporting the Iraq War....

[6ganey9]

@HippieDrummer06 amen brother.

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 You should go to Iraq and repeat this you coward. lol

[poolopis01]

@HippieDrummer06 What people fail to understand is that his intelligence has shown why the war is acceptable in so many ways, but you as well as others choose to flock like sheep to the weak proposition that "war is bad, like yeah, man." Get over it and grow up.

[HippieDrummer06]

@poolopis01 haha what? I never said war is bad, did I? I just don't agree with this war, why do you think we've pulled most of our troops out already, shitforbrains? You are obviously a moron, and have nothing intelligent to offer in this conversation. Get over your IQ of -5 and grow up LOL...

[HippieDrummer06]

@poolopis01 Oh I almost forgot.... in what ways is the war acceptable? Can you even support your brainless comment you just posted? Please reply so we can laugh at you some more

[johnroiberts]

i agree with hitchens on a lot of things,but it's so ignorant to support war

[Grimmjow567]

@johnroiberts Supporting war is not ignorant.

[attemptingtobehumble]

@johnroiberts He isn't ignorant, he is a shill.

[klscott5]

With more than half of Iraqis being Semites, and Hitchens supporting the war, doesn't that make him anti-semitic ?

[katproductionsinc]

Checkout the new song 'Spilling Our Blood For War' on Youtube.

[nykytne13]

Hitchens got destroyed. 

[moh490234890238490]

@nykytne13 owned? how was he owned? hitchens didn't even say anything. why dont you suck on this watch?v=6d7fHvHXeiQ

[radiolaugh]

if democracy hasnt spread from india is it going to spread from iraq

[luwala23]

Stop debating on commentary.

[theToryAnarchist]

Not that it undermines his arguments, but I definitely lost respect for Ritter when I read that he was arrested for sending explicit messages to a 15 year old. Quite unfortunate, really.

[Dougca1985]

i like hitchens and i agreed to him on almost everything except the irag war...but he has made me question my thoughts and the way i percieve things

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Hitchens used to be good around the time of the gulf war when he was just an upcoming intellectual/investigator.

But he switched 180 degrees in the last 10 years. He was clearly bought by right-wingers and Israels propaganda camp.

[circe888]

to hexag1: Thanks for the video of the Hitchens/Ritter debate.However, I am mystified by your choices of the Hitchens photos. Even Saddam gets a flattering photo but the 3 I have seen of Hitchens are less than flattering. Two of them show him smoking, in one of which he is shown shirtless. I don't mind if he smokes but for a lot of people, it puts him in an unfavorable light. Showing him shirtless seems disrespectful. Would you show Ritter shirtless?

[souffle101]

I have to say, I'm a huge Hitchens fan, and he's quite proud of his smoking and drinking reputation (though last I heard he had quit smoking) and is well known for his unkempt appearance. The photo of him naked in the shower is from a piece he did for Vanity Fair called The Limits of Self Improvement (I think). So I don't think any criticism can be leveled based on the choice of photos.

[kpirooz92]

He agreed to being photoed did he not?

It didn't look like he was caught off guard.

[samuelsdale87]

Iraq is proving and will prove to be the greatest foreign policy decision of its generation.

Dictators will not be tolerated and iraq has demostrated this ethical position and sent a warning to all dictatorships.

[ikonsouthamerica]

What happens when a WORSE dictator takes over Iraq. It's what happens whenever we meddle in other people's business.

Look at the Dictators that come to power in Latin America because of our intervention. Look at Iran. Read some history.

Iraq is the greatest foreign policy mistake in U.S history.

Oh yeah. Plus we can't afford it. We're broke!

[kpirooz92]

Dictators will not be tolerated?

Why, then, did the Reagan administration in 1982 remove Saddam from the list of states supporting terror so they could provide him with weapons?

Why did they support him right through the horrendous crimes that he was tried for?

[juhd69]

Yes, our past foreign policy is filled with greatly shaming moments. Around the world and especially toward Iraq. Our support of Hussein increased and prolonged the suffering of the Iraqi people. And we have a special responsibility towards the country.

Our past sins due not obligate us to a policy of isolationism.

[kpirooz92]

I could not agree more that "we have a special responsibility towards the country." That should include providing enormous reparations for 30 years of torture of Iraqis, leaving millions dead.

[juhd69]

So do you agree with me?

You brought up the Reagan admin's support of Saddam as a counterpoint to

samuelsdale87's statement that dictators will not be tolerated.

I would argue that that SHOULD be our policy. Our past toleration of dictators notwithstanding. And that ousting Saddam was a great improvement in this regard.

[kpirooz92]

I quite agree that we should not move to isolationism, if we can recognize our criminal past and refrain from further criminal actions -- like invading Iraq, killing 100s of thousands of people and creating millions of refugees, and destroying the country so completely that Iraqis compare it to the Mongol invasions, and someone who expressed the feelings of Iraqis by throwing a shoe at Bush is a national hero.

[kpirooz92]

I agree that it would have been right to overthrow Saddam, which is why I strongly opposed the Clinton sanctions, condemned as "genocidal" by the administrators, who resigned in protest, recognizing that these devastated Iraqi society, strengthened the tyrant, and probably saved him from the fate of other monsters comparable to him whom we strongly supported to the last moment of their bloody rule, at the very same time.

[kpirooz92]

It's hard to believe that Clinton and his advisors didn't understand that, so assuming rationally, we have to speculate that they sustained the genocidal sanctions in order to ensure that Iraqis wouldn't control Iraq.

[juhd69]

Who? Us? WE did those things? I think you'll find that it was the "parties of god" who were responsible. Most of the Iraqis killed since the invasion were victims and perpetrators of a civil war. WE tried to stop it. The civil war was THEIR idea. This civil war was inevitable. I'll admit that it's highly probable the US invasion hastened this turn of events.

As for the rest of your reply I agree, and think they bolster my position better than yours.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

American policy since WW2 towards the parts of indochina, south america, and specifically the middle east, has been one of stealing the natural resources of that country by installing and supporting brutal murderous dictators who run their nations like a family buisness and make american companies buisness partners.

The option is not that vs isolationism.

Theres a middle road where you participate in the global community without pillaging countries deemed strategically useful.

[juhd69]

I agree. But how can you not see that Iraq represents a change in U.S. foreign policy. We have not installed a brutal dictator in Iraq, he have spent much blood and treasure trying to preserve a fledgling democracy.

If we did not go into Iraq now or soon we would be trying to get whatever brutal asshole who followed Saddam to be more friendly to U.S. business interests.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

If the US was intersted in democracy, they would stop sending guns, weapons and money to countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. Which are run by brutal dictators who the entire population hates and want to remove but cant because of how well the US supports them.

The middle east would be richer than europe today if America had not been deliberately sabotaging it since WW2. Oil is the most valuable resource on the face of the planet. Anerica wants to control the region. Plain and simple

[juhd69]

First of all nothing about this situation is "Plain and simple". I agree with you that the US support of the Saudis and their ilk is wrong.

Obviously the US is interested in democracy in Iraq and many other countries. But for whatever cynical unethical reasons we embarrassingly find ourselves supporting non-democracies

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Wrong x 10. Those who control US foreign policy do not give a a flying shit about democracy. All they car about is making the US more powerful and controlling oil resources. Period.

It is like i said, impossible to discuss these things in 500 letter text-bytes.

Reflect on a statement by the US state department in 1948. They said Middle-easter oil was "the greatest strategic prize in history"

America controls that oil by arming and supporting ruthless dictators who they do buisness with.

[spacerumsfeld]

It's one thing to shamelessly deploy Chomsky citations and another to actually do research and come to an independent conclusion. If you had done the latter, you would've surely come across Iraqi public opinion on the matter of removing Saddam. (1) For all the problems facing the society today, a supermajority of Iraqis supported his removal, even in late, 2006, when the violence was getting unbearable. They know more about living under the guy than you or I do, so I'm obliged to take their word

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Chomsky citations? Rofl. If you were a muslim you would know how laughable that is.

Go to any cafe in the middle east and speak to the people there and they'll remind you of that quote. Presidents like Nasr of Egypt used to talk about it in the 60's in their speeches.

Chomsky is a great man. But do not be so naive as to assume just because you don't know anything about global politics, that everyone is in your shoes.

[spacerumsfeld]

And regarding the oil situation...the only successful bid for a contract has so far been rewarded to a consortia of BP and CNPC (China!) OVER the objections of Exxon Mobil. (2) So the 'brutal imperial control of resources' theory has NOT panned out whatsoever. Look, Chomsky is a lot smarter than me as well, but I still find it fun to do my own research and not serve as a mere parrot.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Don't make me laugh

They US wants the puppets they've installed to literally re-write the constitution to give american companies free access to Iraqi oil by setting up a no-bid for contracts system

Iraqi "government" is hesitant to simply openly sign everything away, because they will loose even a shred of the popular support they have

But its coming slowly

Eg - You used exxon mobil as evidence for your argument. Guess what? They just signed a contract for iraqi oil 2 weeks ago

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@Eye0fTheStorm By that logic the entire war in iraq makes no sense, Saddam offered us all the oil we could ever want in exchange for letting him invade Kuwait and we turned him down.

If we wanted oil, we would have invaded south america, because that's where we get it from. The middle east is a source of oil for china and Europe primarily not the US.

We don't loot resources, our current trade deficit clearly shows we pay through the nose for them.

[juhd69]

I don't think you can back up your contention that if the US stopped supporting or never supported the governments of Saudi Arabia or Egypt that something significantly better or more democratic would be there today.

What keeps the middle east down is themselves. What's the one guaranteed solution to poverty? the liberation of women. What does Islam have to say about that? I don't think so. The middle east sucks because of all the socioeconomic stuff, plus the Foul ideology of Islam.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Please do not be so ignorant

Muslims were building the most beautiful & peaceful cities on the face of the earth at a time when white christians were lost in savagery

For over 600 years Muslim cities were the jewels of the world. They were filling giant libraries with the greatest science and medicine of the time.

All the while Europeans were running around forests painting their faces blue and chopping each others heads off

Demonizing their victims is the first thing oppressors do

[juhd69]

What does that have to do with anything?

It is a fact that the only guaranteed cure for poverty is the liberation of women, it is a fact that Islam is not a big fan of the fairer sex.

I don't know how rehashing some short lived well past glory that Islam achieved answers my points at all.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Short-lived? An empire which lasted longer than than the roman empire, lasting for nearly a millenia is short lived? It is the largest and longest lasting empire in human history.

The point was to counter you stupid racist comment that muslim countries are backward because of Islam. Muslim countries are backward because of precolonial exploitation of the british, and post ww2 neo-colonial expolitation in the form of puppet governments brought to and kept in power by American foreign policy

[juhd69]

Do you mean the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire or both? Do you consider it a point of pride that Muslims had a non-democratic form of government for longer than the Romans did? Shouldn't right thinking people wish for the end of empires?

Islam is not a race you dolt.

[quantumhed]

you right, so go kill women and mutilate children.

[asheradensein]

3:55 The bad-boy of intellectuals, lol. Gotta love the guy.

[stupidyoungmanvideos]

Thanks for posting this hexag, highly appreciated.

[PlanetoftheAtheists]

No wonder Hitchens later chose to focus his attention on religion...he has his ass handed to him on the issue of Iraq....a schoolchild has more sense than he does on the subject

[moh490234890238490]

@PlanetoftheAtheists if any1 had his ass handed to him it was scott ritter. maybe you didnt watch the video, but what can i expect from a 911 truther :P

[Helt91]

thank you very much for uploading this entire very interesting debate.

[agentssith]

I wish I had more time to listen to this right now. I like both of these guys.

[PhillyDickinson]

Cheers for uploading this.