Hitchens Vs. Alterman Debate Part 3/6 'Is Hitchens Wrong About Everything?'

[TheTerrorUforgot]

Alterman is a douchebag. He was part of the group of butthurt Democrats who absolutely HATED Nader after he ran in 2000. Disgusting.

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, IReupload.

[unfad1ng]

Hitchens made me change my mind about the war in iraq

[funcpl2741054]

Alterman is a whinny little boy

[dibaterman]

Alterman is just not ready yet, it's really sad... he probably would be a better debater if he wasn't wishing he had a British accent.

[KaelKara2]

I`d like to see a debate between chomsky and hitchens, a more substantial one they had in print.

[Territomauvais]

@KaelKara2 Chomsky said he would never debate Hitchens on the Iraq War :(

Shame.

[TheTerrorUforgot]

@Territomauvais That's because Chomsky is smart and Hitchens is a troll.

[writersblock26]

@KaelKara2 Me, too.

[steveinchelsea]

I must be one of the 1 out of 10 liberals who also opposed out intervention in Afghanistan, and there are conservatives opposed as well. What has it gotten us?

[AlKadath]

would that Hitchens had to debate a competent leftist, rather than a blathering liberal like Alterman -- that would be a real show!

[wwww2001]

@AlKadath

I've not seen anyone debate Hitchens better on this. Only worse.

[Jabbowhaa]

Anybody know from where Hitchens draws his "4 reasons" for a regime's sacrifice of autonomy?

[writersblock26]

@Jabbowhaa That's what I'm wondering, too.

[AntonBatey]

Point 4, giving aid to “international nihilist” groups? Countries that busk international law, like the U.S., Israel and the U.K.?

Yeah, okay Christopher.

As you see, all four points are invalid.

[AntonBatey]

Point 3, “fooling around with weapons of mass destruction” – even President Bush conceded the weapons point in March, 2006. They were wrong, pure and simple. The weapons Saddam DID have were ones that he was provided with by the West, namely, France and the U.S.

[AntonBatey]

Point 2, the invasion and occupation of neighboring states. The United States had no problem when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, or when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, or when turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, or when Indonesia invaded East Timor. Not to mention all the invasions, coups and occupations that the U.S. partook in since World War II.

[AntonBatey]

Adding to Point 1, the United States supported Saddam when he was carrying out massive atrocities against the Kurds, both in 1988 and again in 1991 after the crushed rebellion (which the U.S. sparked, incidentally). The U.S. also supported the Suharto regime, which committed genocide. So Point 1 is a horrible point to make on picking and choosing Iraq to invade.

[AntonBatey]

Regarding Hitchens’ four reasons how a country can sacrifice its independence:

1. Violating the Genocide Conventions, which, according to the Hitchens, the United States has “pledged to uphold”. The United States when they *finally* accepted the Genocide Conventions in 1987 added a reservation that *we* can never be taken to the World Court over it. In other words, other countries have to obey the conventions, but we don’t’.

[borjon23]

Hitchens is a fine debater and undoubtedly right about many things, but not this. A demonstration that eloquence does not track truth.

[spareaxe]

Why is it so great that this Alterman cares so much that this Hitchens is wrong about everything? Does he get a cookie for his efforts.

[sulfurousstench]

both these guys are so contemptible in their own special little ways

[YourNameHere1212]

Why can you almost always tell if a man is a pus- I mean liberal or a conservative by the way he talks? Almost always.

[AndroidPolitician]

I hate when no one challenges Hitchens on his genocide and aggression points and basically go to like "Well hey, invading Iraq is just too costly".

Alterman lost the debate by not conceding on those points.

[l3lip]

Love how Alterman ducks the Iraqi vacuum point by bringing in Afghanistan and marginalizing the point as "hypothetical".

Take notes kids, this is how the Left works.

[panhoboism]

i always considered myself a peace-loving liberal. Hitch made me change my mind completely.

[Soloman1001]

Hitchens just eats people..LOL!

[Yupiyeahs]

Hitchens reminds me of the sixties. RUSSIANS EVERYWHERE! Build you bunkers! *rolleyes*

[countertreason]

Alterman is a standard-bearer of the boring and cliche bulk of the left. The only redeeming quality he has: he is polite. I will give him that. It is odd to see a left-winger who doesn't get really emotional and insulting.

[energizerrayovac007]

alterman is such a tool.he has no knowledge of the issues at hand and runs away from hitchen's arguments

[Jabbowhaa]

@leonski35

No evidence to back your arguments, no citations, no quotes, nothing. How about you address his contentions specifically and provide alternatives instead of promulgating trash?

[chuckinator0]

I agree with Hitchens that Sadam was an awful despot that needed to be removed, but that is no excuse for Bush deliberately lying to the American public and playing on the fresh wounds of 9/11. I also wonder if Hitchens thinks Bush shared his own motivations for supporting the war in Iraq. I don't think he does think that.

[governmentcheese411]

how can so many be so far from understanding why the world is in such turmoil. it simple, humanity is on the verge of the next evolutionary step,period. we are about to cross into the glorious concept of a type 1 civilization and like all major evolutionary changes, some will make it and some will not. some will adapt and some won't. good or bad don't matter. as a collective humanity will take these steps and with no guaranty we'll accomplish the task. we may fail and all will be lost.

[Believerification]

We'll "recuperate" your oil industry? I'm sure you will.

[SecondsToLast]

"Look, these are debate points..."

What a knob.

[kufr72]

Versus I, who speak immutable truth!

[BARCACROSSESTHEALPS]

Jack the ripper owned below....

[RainmanCT]

eh. Hitchens should stick to religion. He has a poor grasp of history as does this Alterman guy.

Both make the mistake of attributing idealistic goals of American invasion of Afghanistan rather than recognizing actual geopolitical strategy.

[MiracleOfRealism]

I wouldn't say he has a poor grasp of history although he clearly has a biased nationalistic way of justifying the United States involvement in the world. I am not sure how he (or anyone) could justify what the USA does and condemn places like Iraq, without creating a biased double standard.

I would have to agree with your second statement to some degree.

[darwinkilledgod]

You can't see the massive gulf between invading a country, building its infrastructure, establishing democracy, closing rape-rooms and deposing a dictator... and invading a country to plunder its people, legalize widespread rape, take their oil, and commit genocide. You have no morals if those look the same to you.

[MiracleOfRealism]

We bombed a lot of their infrastructure, I don't like democracy and who leads other countries is none of our business. I wish foreign warmongers thought as you do so they could dispose us of our dictator(s). And tell me 100,000 Iraqi civilians isn't something to scoff at.

And when I say I don't like democracy, I mean the 51% can rule the 49%, which I do not care for. I prefer a Republic whereby we are represented and our fundamental rights are sheltered from the democratic process.

[durruti1936]

Hitchens should be careful waving those 4 Points about. 1) Regular aggressions against neighboring states. Grenada, Panama, Haiti etc? Not to mention meddling in Chile, Nicaragua and Venezuela? 2) Non-proliferation of WMDs. Ahem, whose got the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world? Supports Israel's arsenal? 3) Genocide. The native Americans and Filipino resistance are older. Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos more recent. 4) Hosts terrorists. Like Carriles, Constant, Bosch etc?

[soapfiction]

You don't know what you're talking about. We have nukes, but haven't produced any since before the Non-Proliferation treaty, and thus are not in violation of it. We haven't invaded a neighboring country with the intention of conquest since 1845; none of your examples count. We don't host wanted terrorists, and you clearly don't know the meaning of the word "genocide", which means a planned, calculated attempt to wipe out an entire race or ethnic group. None of the examples you list were as such.

[darwinkilledgod]

None of the people you mentioned had genocide commited against them, and you slander the american people by saying it, not to mention give cover to genuine tyrants who actually commit genocide.

[MrSalamander7]

fire

[jgaltut]

Hitchens is SO correct about religion being bullshit. But he is SOOOO wrong about terrorism.

The US and Europe are behind almost all of the terrorism in the world. We need to STOP our OWN so-called intelligence agencies and black ops groups FIRST.

Then we can see if there are real external threats out there. We will find that most are fake.

The real problem is the central bankers controlling everything. The real solution is evolving past the monetary system to a zeitgeist type society.

[Ev630]

So, are you saying, the bigger the "SO", the more true your belief becomes?

That is SOOOOOOOOOO amazing.

[fearthepib]

Go at corporations and not religions? I don't see a difference between the two.

[phildon44]

Lol. Wow the Western world truly is literally paralytic with endless debating etc. We're finished

[onionyt2]

When did this debate take place? How recently, I mean?

[soapfiction]

Fall 2008.

[FaaarLeft]

Is there any evidence that Osama bin Laden carried out the 9/11 attacks? No.

[bjizza2]

This is the one topic I have to disagree with Hitchens... agreed that Husain was a menace but you have to consider how we did it. You can't remove the blundering of the war ie; museum plundering, not securing weapons stash, allowing a jack ass instill bathist removal from gov't and firing of soldiers, the small force policy by Rumsfeld, no bid contracts, and black water. So Hitchens my friend you are dead wrong on this one

[QwidgyboMan]

3.04 "And my position and the position of virtually the entire world"....

What a smug farktard Alterman is.

[gallus1]

Islam bashing....whats wrong with that?....you ask such a question as if it wasn't a legitimate exercise. Any thinking person not indoctrinated with the murderous ideology of ANY of the main religions, and that certtainly includes Roman Catholicism, realize the sooner we rid ourselves of the curse of them, the sooner we will achieve our human potential. It is indeed fortunate hell is a myth lest you'd find more of your ilk in it than mine.

[fileboy2002]

The problem with it is that people who bash Islam are almost without exception bashing Muslims--i.e. human beings. Islamophobia justifies the expansion of US control over the world through violence.

[moiphx2]

What you've just said is incredibly offensive. I'd advise you actually familiarize yourself with what goes on in Islamic states.

I criticize Islam because I don't like it. I have no problem with Muslims per se, except the Islamofascists. I suppose you think criticizing Islam is racist, yes?

[fileboy2002]

Well, I admit I have never visited a Muslim majority country. However, I grew up in a largely Muslim neighborhood in Chicago, so I suspect know more about Islam than you do.

No, criticizing Islam is not racist. But let's get serious: most people who use words like "islamofascist" hate MUSLIMS, not just Islam. They make no distinction between the faith and the faithful. It like when racists say, "I don't hate blacks. I hate niggers."

[moiphx2]

"...I suspect I know more about Islam than you do."

You'd be wrong, for reasons too long and boring to go into.

I don't hate anything except hate, especially when hate disguises itself as religion. I see no difference between what's going on in Iran right now and the principles of fascism. The moderate Muslims are the ones being treat like shit because of the behavior of the fascist element.

"I don't hate blacks. I hate niggers."

^Chris Rock said that. But I get your point.

[fileboy2002]

The moderate Muslims were being treated like shit long before the so-called "fascist element" emerged.

In any case, it sounds like you are making a distinction between ordinary Muslims and people like bin-Laden. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not.

[moiphx2]

Lucky for us both that we know our Sunni from our Shia, as it were. Like you said, the distinction isn't made enough.

[TieXiongJi]

Maybe, "I don't hate stupid people, I hate the bible."

[JACKtheRIPP3R189]

"No, criticizing Islam is not racist. But let's get serious: most people who use words like "islamofascist" hate MUSLIMS, not just Islam."

This might come as a shock to you, but islam isn't a race, even if you demanded all muslims exterminated it wouldn't make you a racist, because it isn't a "race" you hate. Just before making an intensely ignorant comment you said to the guy "i suspect i know more about islam than you do".

[fileboy2002]

It is not a shock; it is my point exactly. And I made the comment I did because no one who knew anything about Islam could throw a blanket of condemnation over a religion of 1.3 billion people. You are the ignorant one.

[JACKtheRIPP3R189]

Yes i'm ignorant, even though you think muslim is a "race"? Do be serious.

[fileboy2002]

I don't think muslims comprise a race, and there is no way you could infer that from anything I said.

[richter75]

Large number of muslims do a better job throwing blankets of condemnation over their religion everyday than any of us can wish for being revealed..

[jtaylor432]

i think you're confusing Hitchens' problem with the terms Islamophobia and anti-islamic racism. If you're going to parrot a meme, at least use it in the right context

[JACKtheRIPP3R189]

No, some fool was saying that being against islam is "racist", i was correcting him.

[FrankinHolland]

I think peaceful coexistance with Islam is probably not possible. Look at Pakistan. They have killed or driven out most non-muslims yet tolerant India has a 10% muslim population and growing. Islam means submission.

[fileboy2002]

Pakistan has not "killed or driven out most non-muslims." Where did you hear that? And India is hardly a picture of tolerance; Hindu nationalists in Gujarat massacred thousands of Muslims in riots just a few years ago.

[1Eyeneeded]

Oh here we go at Islam bashing again.

No mention of corporations and corrupt politicians who profit from bloody wars all the time.

Your only profit from the war is dead Muslims though I bet most of them are normal people.

Why do you people have a go at Religion and not corporations?

[ckguitar20]

I do believe some Islam bashing is in order..don't you? and perhaps some catholic bashing as well...im not claiming to be an atheist however religion is a bureaucracy..if there is a god it is very convieniant for people to claim that they know what he/she thinks and wants..religion is the source of the problem which maybe why Islam should be bashed yet in Muslim-governmental countries you will be sentenced to death for disagreeing or even questioning..this is no human decency as you mentioned

[1Eyeneeded]

I think that's a little bit inaccurate because you get protests for law changes in Iran for example all the time and I don't see them getting beheaded.

Think Corporations have human decency?

Well Hitchens, Dawkins etc never question that, it's always Religion this Religion that.

Think the British or Roman Empire wanted to just spread Religion?

[1Eyeneeded]

Er I'm actually a Catholic.

Your the one who changed the subject to the 'barbary wars' when I was talking about the invasion of Iraq.

People like you let their hate for Religion dismiss basic Human decency.

[1Eyeneeded]

If you want to use that as an excuse to exterminate Muslims then that's up to you.

Doesn't hide the fact that you and the rest of the Hitchenites support mass murder to further your agendas.

Ignore everything else now and in the past, cherry pick what's relevant to your agenda and you have your battle plan.

The people of the middle east wont bow down to the Secularists. Neither will I or the people of my country.

[1Eyeneeded]

Read Wikipedia?

Very unreliable source if you ask me.

Those blood thirsty Hitchenites never stop.

[WizardsStaff]

Nah man Wikipedia is legit...

[Tribad]

"Christopher..these are all debating points you're making.."

Well..duh!? What a fucking idiot :)

[1Eyeneeded]

You love feeding off relentless hate for Muslims and probably Religion as well.

In fact apart from the Corporations that pushed for the war in Iraq, I bet other people just wanted to kill Muslims.

Don't worry the Corporations and anti Islam factions have made a great harvest.

Sick.

[1Eyeneeded]

Hitchens = one who condones mass murder

[burpingdogg]

Hitch follows rule #1 of debate: Answer the question you wish you had been asked. His second strategy is to pile multiple arguments (or claims) into a single response. When his opponent doesn't address one of them adequately, go for that failure. Too bad Hitch is wrong. Ex: Hussein tolerated Zarqawi's presence. He had bigger fish to fry at the time, and certainly didn't want to stir up a new hornets nest against his weak regime. To Hitch, that's "shoulder to shoulder".

[bcmalloy]

why waste your time hitchens? this guy is naive and seems to not realize the USA put Saddam in power that is why they had a responsibility to remove him.

[koroigetsuga]

Hitchens is sooooo full of shit. Who the fuck gave him the right to have these 4 categories that he points with his fingers. Where the fuck does he come with them and under what authority?

[ashleylovesdaddy]

I hereby request a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Michael Moore.  That'd be a good one. Hitch. Please do this for us and America.

[IReupload]

They actually had a debate, and at the end Michael Moore had his ass handed to him. You can read hitchens article , google ; Unfairenheit 9/11The lies of Michael Moore

[padraic2001eire]

I wish there was audio or footage of the debate somewhere on the web. Having said that, I quite liked Fahrenheit 9/11.

[VarialProductions]

they never debated.. did they?/

[jonssonaudioprod]

@IReupload Did anyone record that one!?!?! I'd give my left testicle to hear/see that one!!!

[nyomythus]

Micheal Moore is self-discrediting, no debate is necessary. It would be a stoop.

[Guedingen]

By the way, many thanks for the upload

[finchy633]

damn it! i've been watching hitchens for some years now. as much as i like him, once, just once...id like to see him lose an argument, just to make me realise that he IS beatable. but he just always seems to pull something out of his sleeve.

[Guedingen]

I don't think it's too difficult, actually. Hitchens evades the fact that if you're going to invade a country on moral grounds, then where do you start/end?

[Ellesime89]

I'd like to see you beat him on that point, Guedingen. Truly, I would love to see the youtube commentators debate Hitchens face to face (or at least through writing).

[richter75]

He defines a better and more effective and honest moral stand, and it stands out; the latter is the sad part.

[cantilever]

He addressed that point with the maxim: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

The US cannot clean up EVERY mess, but it can direct its resources where intervention is most needed...i.e., Iraq.

Iraq was the worst and most culpable rogue state, guilty of all four actionable criteria that Hitchens adduced: genocide, weapons of mass destruction, aggression against neighboring states, and suborning international terrorism.