the NSC explained that “the majority of Arabs … believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.” And they are right: “our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close U.S. relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries,” blocking democracy...
I don't think Hitchens would have advocated the start of a war, but rather he saw opportunity, amidst chaos, to liberate people from their terrible living conditions. His beliefs were akin to almost nobody else who was pro-war at the time. He was genuinely cared about people, and saw their possible liberation as a reason to support the already ongoing war. He is a Humanist, not a warmonger.
I ain't even joking, at 13:37 I nearly cried. Oh Hitchens, what happened. It would have been awesome to see Hitchens, Chomsky and others take down the American Empire together.
@vesemre Let me break it down for you since you obviously took the short bus to school. Chomsky's distorted views, misreporting, denial of truth, & ignorance of historical facts ARE rooted in his background as a self-hating Jew. Why else would he sell out his own people by his record of such distortions, demonization of Israel, & complete lack of focus on those who started the violence, started all the wars, & repeatedly vow to wipe out all the Jews? He should stick to being a linguist.
A: nice attack ad honimem not that Id expect a well reasoned argument on a youtube comment boar but what ever. B: its good to know that there are still some people suffering under the myth of a chosen people who are free of sin. Israel is a costly expense to relive us of our European guilt. don't forget that we were the ones who radicalized the Muslims to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. we gave them weapons and the promise of the resurrection of the Ummayad and the Safavid empires.
@anybodysbody It's ad HOMINEM - & I suppose your insult about "kindergarten wasn't? Who said anything about Chosen People? That term hardly means what you think it does - it simply means that God supposedly chose the Jews to spread ethical monotheism - not hat he favored them. And many other religions claim to be
"chosen" as well (need I name them?) Zionism started in response to very real oppression & brutal discrimination of Jews. And Muslims were radicalized since Islam began.
@JerrySPsy Explain, then, why most reasonable Muslims are not "radicalized" as you say. In fact, only the small minority are the terrorists you see on the news.
@superclaydude The very essence of Islam shows no tolerance for non-believers. Mohammed started the religion with murders and wars and nearly 300 million people have been killed in the name of Islam since it began. Nearly every single day, in one part of the world or another, we hear of Muslim massacres of innocent people. Certainly most Muslims are not radical in normal situations but it sure seem they get incited to violence more often than people of other faiths.
@JerrySPsy Well, this only proves the radical Muslims are a very special case. I am not a Muslim myself, though you have to understand--their Quran doesn't incite them to their horrible deeds. A fundamentalistic interpretation of it brings them to such atrocities. In the 1400s radicals were told that if they killed in God's name they would gain seventy-two virgins in Paradise, and that suicide for a warring jihad was a part of God's plan--hence the reason for violence.
@JerrySPsy : At this moment in time, this does seem the case.
Ascend our temporally finite perspectives and another religion takes the prize for most bloodthirsty. Depending on what century you hail from you could form through equal logic that the followers of Yeshua or Abraham "seem they get incited to violence more often than people of other faiths", that the believers of the Roman Gods or Norse Gods or Pagan Gods would be responsible for the "Nearly every single day" reports of massacre.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk The word you were looking for is "Racist". But last I heard, muslim wasn't, and will never be, a genetic trait. It is as morally correct to hate islam as it is to hate naziism.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Do you feel that berating muslims for killing people over an insane ideal, fairytale god, and chronic xenophobia is being hateful? Especially when the muslim kills over "honor". Pathetic that you would defend such behavior. You are the lowest form of human possible.
@Exmech2 i am "the lowest form of human possible" because i don't share your white supremacist ideology? every "God" is a fairytale, including the Christian one. far more people have died at the hands of white imperialism than by terrorists (not to mention the fact that the US created, trained, armed, and funded the terrorist organization that would go on to destroy the WTC towers). pathetic racism...
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Glad to see your ignorance is limited to the 21st century. And once again... muslim isn't a race. But then, an uneducated, ignorant twit apologist such as you won't accept that demonstrable fact. It doesn't fit into your own cultish views.
@superclaydude Does that include the "minority" who would happily kill their own children over some medieval, misplaced, and malevolent sense of honor?
@JerrySPsy "Chomsky's distorted views, misreporting, denial of truth, & ignorance of historical facts ARE rooted in his background as a self-hating Jew." Oh come on. Chomsky is not ignorant. And just because you sound so incredibly convinced that you are right, does not make it so. "Why else would he sell out his own people... [and] vow to wipe out all the jews?" Really? I feel pretty confident in claiming that he has never said that, but source me and I might change my mind...
@ExposingTheism A trivial and mundane response by you who probably does not realize over the course of 15 years Mr. Hitchens spent many a day in Iraq and surrounding areas, and supported the war because he saw it as an opportunity to help the oppressed people and families he got to know over that time frame.
@CaseRed0605 War is in fact the worst thing you can do to free from oppression. Their are smarter solutions, as evidence to our own policy. The fact is, we use war simply to keep us afloat, and the people who create it use the hearts of me like Hitchens as their puppets. Either we have intelligence or we don't, and the fact is, we would rather kill than convince.
The irony here is that CAQ would have surely opposed the latest misadventure in Iraq and the Washington Post was one of the first and most vigorous supporters of the war.
Instead of warning about a "death-bed" conversion on atheism he should have said he was mistaken on the war. But no, he doubled-down.
@dyl11ans you will never know? really? so you've ignored all the speeches that he gave about protecting kurdistan, removing saddam, and stabilizing iraq? he didnt fall in line you fell in line with the american political propaganda wich tells you that you have to be on the blue or red team. neither of wich are in the business of being humanitarian. hes the farthest thing from a war monger he wanted as i do to stop the genicides.
@Nemesis000000 yep, theres a very valid leftist humanitarian argument to be made in favor of us entervention in iraq. unfortunately peaple cant understand that things are more complicated than left or right.
Before people start screaming over how awfull it is that Taliban exists, and how horrible they are, study the fucking cold war.
Anyone remember when they werent bad? Oh yeah, thats right, they always were. Its just that back then, we literally provided the mujahideen with everything they needed the figh the "evil" communists. Dont believe that evil exists everywhere you are told. It seems as if the definition of evil certainly changes in the eyes of the US gov.
Im sorry but everything hitches has said about how its logical to attack the middle east cz f theyr oppression is proven wrong..tho his views on religion r spot on..im a muslim and i support both and respect them..we shud all learn to respect each othr...
This "version of Hitchens" hasn't gone anywhere. He just realized that the spineless faction of the left (sadly all too large) would rather bash on Pat Robertson, where there's no real risk, than actually face up to the threat that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban formerly represented.
Hitchens is as courageous now as ever in speaking a contrary truth, including against those whose response to all the ills of the world is a call for American self-flagellation, and who blame the US for everything.
@ChollieD Although what you say has merit I categorically disagree with his military fear of (indeed deplorable) theocratic Islamic states. I'm sorry but I can't understand the math of it. This paranoid belief that these states are such an absolute threat that US unilateral military action is so necessary completely throws me. I've tried to understand it as I'm not against thwarting imminent threats but I just can't see it.
@petepamf Good luck convincing a nuclear, theocratic Iran (specifically, its deeply religious leadership) that using a nuclear bomb on Israel or the US would be a bad thing.
Sept 11, 2001 wasn't enough to convince you that some of these folks can manufacture means, motive, and opportunity to do you harm?
Suggest you watch Hitchens on Iraq if you want more about why we were right to topple Saddam (our prosecution of war was a sad story though)...argument is too big for 500 character limit.
@ChollieD Iran doesn't have nukes. The last time Iran invaded a country was centuries ago. Stop being a cheerleader and get some facts, it will liberate you.
@Dymdez Stop being a moronic, half-assed sloganeer and consider whether Iran is trying *really, really* hard to get nukes. I can call you mean names, too. See how enlightening and fostering of human communication it is?
It's only healthy to consider what it would be like to have an Ayatollah with his finger on the trigger, and to do that now rather than wait until it's a fait accompli. I don't argue for war WITH Iran, but to do our utmost to foster the green revolution.
@ChollieD I'm sorry, but if youre in the business of targeting crazy countries who are dangerous, please guide your efforts to Pakistan and Israel and the US, not some poor country that doesn't even have nukes. You don't have an argument here. No name calling necessary.
@Dymdez You call what you're saying a coherent argument? Dog! Fart! Blarge Nargle Dnah! Makes just as much sense to me...
The Taliban proved decisively that they were dangerous by harboring Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein was a completely deranged psychopath who claimed to have transcribed a Qu'ran in his own blood. Look up "Halabja" sometime in Wikipedia. The world is far, far better off without him. I hate that we were so incompetent in his removal, but proud that we did it.
@ChollieD Ok, but you forgot the part where the US supported and armed Saddam for 20 years. Right? Why did you leave that out? Al-Qaeda had virtually no support in the Middle East until the US went fucknuts over there. These are two important facts, yes, they matter. You can't pick and choose your evidence, you have to look at the aggregate and make intelligent decisions based on the whole array of information.
@Dymdez "Why did you leave that out?" Because the whole truth is not possible in just 500 chars. Obviously we didn't know exactly who/what we were dealing with for much of those 20 years.
Al-Qaeda in my view was a nucleation site, where anti-American sentiment (anti-Enlightenment might be more apt) could and would collect once we applied heat. Better to concentrate it in one spot for extermination. Or, what was our correct play after 9/11...apologize to them for inventing penicillin?
@ChollieD You're losing me completely, now. You ask what the right play after 911 was... Certainly it wasn't invading the wrong country and killing hundreds of thousands. Certainly it wasn't invading Afghanistan and killing 95% civilians in an effort to eliminate Taliban (who we funded 20-30 years earlier). The correct play was to view 911 as a criminal act and respond the same way we do with any other criminal act. Instead, we invaded two countries and got the entire Arab world to hate us.
@Dymdez I think it's fairly obvious that we won't convince each other about much. But constantly beating ourselves up over having supported Saddam and the Mujahadeen (NOT the Taliban) is to suggest that they were not actors in their own right. We hoped they would be good and true allies, and we were utterly wrong about that.
Re criminal act: so we should have sent the Law and Order cops to invade Afghanistan? Maybe a SWAT team? Come on...
@ChollieD No, we don't have to beat ourselves up over supporting Saddam and the Mujahideen, but we should recognize that invading Iraq had nothing to do with imminent threats and terrorism. In fact, it has made terror much worse, as predicted by the CIA and proved in RAND Project (governmental) studies.
Re:re: That's exactly right. There are two ways to treat terrorism, policing and paying attention to grievances. Invading countries only enhances crime (as proven by all relevant studies).
@ChollieD I would like to add something here. The Mujahadeen and the Taliban have many of the same ideologies, if not most of the same ideologies. The Mujahadeen split into because of a disagreement from a SLIGHT ammount of the people in the group.
To pretend that we didnt know that were islamists at that time is lying. We knew that very well.
@ChollieD I've obviously watched that as this is a very pressing issue and wouldn't bother engaging such a topic without having some inclination as to the "convincing of folks". I like Hitchens knows Iranians. He obviously has associates that lead him to the similar conclusion you've concocted (hopefully on your own merits and your not just a Hitchens disciple) but my acquaintances have led me to the conclusion that Iran lobbing a nuke into Israel is the most absurd thing they've ever heard.
@petepamf Fair enough, it's absurd for them to lob a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv. But what happens to nuclear profileration in the region once Iran has the weapons? Do they have the security to prevent jihadists from getting access to fissile material? Do any smaller weapons "sneak" across Iraq and into Syria, or is the technology then shared with Damascus?
No, I don't want to be chicken little, but this line "Oh the Ayatollahs don't want to hurt anyone" is just roseate.
@ChollieD I'm obviously aware of such fears as "what if jihadists blah blah" and indeed don't subscribe to such fears. Let's just hope I'm right because seeing that the US can't even control a bunch of technologically backward taliban the thought of them taking on Iran is laughable.
@petepamf Well, one thing we can do is NOT hire for president another a rootin tootin Texas moron with jizz for brains. All Ahmedinejad could ever want is a Christian foil for his comedy routine.
Seems like there's a disconnect between not worrying about the jihadists and your evaluation that the US couldn't control the Taliban. I think the reason that we can worry so much less about the jihadists is precisely because we've killed a lot of them.
@tbagzsauga Why? History in the last ten years has shown overwhelmingly that Chomsky was spot on. I can see no issue where Hitchens was correct? I am a huge Hitchens fan, too. Anyone disagree with factual evidence?
Funny, the whole Chomsky talk has about 2000 views and a handful of comments. On this part with Hitchens it shows almost 60,000 views and many pages of comments ^^
@megamarsvin Two and a half men is the most watched comedy, guess that makes it the most funny? (if that was too vague) Fox news gets the most viewers, guess that makes it more credible?
@megamarsvin "just an observation" Bitch please, its like when racists say "blacks have the highest crime rates" JUST SAYING. No you were not just saying, you know what you said and you are aware of the connotations (unless you're genuinely just an idiot) you made a pathetic attempt to use an ad populum argument to favor hitchens.
@pandasftuw Actually no, everything you said so far has completely missed the point. If I had to choose (which I don't) I like Chomsky better, because Hitchens is too much of a populist. If anything that's the point I was making. But I respect both of them.
I can't be responsible for what you "read between the lines" in my comments.
@megamarsvin "Funny, the whole Chomsky talk has about 2000 views and a handful of comments. On this part with Hitchens it shows almost 60,000 views and many pages of comments ^^" In what planet does that comes across as pro noamsky? It is a pretty sound interpretation to view this as a silly ad populum agrument on face value especially when considering YT comments 100% of the time are pushing agendas/opinions not just random observations.
Well perhaps to be fair I should have used the term 'tacit support'. In practical terms it amounts to the same thing. In this regard I would point to Ahmadinejad in Iran and Nasrallah in Lebanon - the latter perhaps not exactly a despot, but certainly a murderous figurehead. As an extension of this, the leaders of Hamas usually escape criticism. As I suggested earlier I think his vision has been distorted by what he feels is a need to support anyone opposing Zionism and American 'Imperialism'.
@moovershaker I think "tacit support" a matter of interpretation. I'd like to hear how you define this "support"?
I can't say I've ever seen Chomsky speak in support of Ahmadinejad except to say that Iran like any other sovereign nation should have the right to self-determination.
As for Hamas, he's said he considers their attacks "criminal acts and politically stupid" (a direct quote) but he has implied they are understandable in the context of ongoing Zionist occupation and violence.
@megamarsvin Well I don't think there is too much room for interpretation. His failure to condemn Ahmadinejad's murderous regime outright is in itself to offer an unacceptable level of support - or 'tacit support.' To suggest that Chomsky simply supports Iran's right for self determination is so vague it's virtually irrelevant. As for Hamas, to imply that terrorism is understandable given the context etc... is to offer excuses for the inexcusable.
@moovershaker "Failure to condemn"? He has criticized Ahmadinejad on specific points, he's spoken in favor of the Green protests in 2009 but even if he hadn't, does that mean any other argument he makes becomes invalid? Is criticism of your government only allowed if you qualify every outing with the statement that there are worse ones in the world?
Mr Chomsky's stance on Iran is not vague in the least but it is nuanced, this also applies to the Hamas issue. Understanding is not condoning.
@megamarsvin 'Vague' relates to the support, as you put it, for Iran's self determination. He fails to stick to the real issues. Chomsky may criticize from time to time but his main stance is that Iran is out of favor as it refuses to do Americas bidding. The aggression, racism, homophobia, the brutality shown to women and political opponents as well as the regimes absolute support for terrorism are the most important issues. When addressing these issues, ones stance must be unequivocal.
@moovershaker I'm still not sure what you find vague about it. His stance, as I understand it, is that Iran like any other sovereign nation has a right to a nuclear program and the US has no right to interfere. But he's not a supporter of Ahmadinejad or the theocracy, as I said he's been very clear on his support of the Green protests last elections. If you've ever heard him speak on these topics I'm not sure how you could find this confusing.
But "unequivocal" is nonsense, nuance is important.
@moovershaker (continued) But let me say it's easy to attack someone on vague alleged sympathies for "terrorists" whatever that means, modern day McCarthyism to silence dissent, but it's not so easy to actually counter his arguments.
If you disagree with his statements in this talk, I'd be happy to hear your counter arguments, rather than making vague accusations.
@megamarsvin You continue to miss the point, It is Chomsky's overall distorted world view that plays into the hands of the Iranian regime. OF COURSE you should criticise western government and policy without having to mention that some other country is worse. But that does not in any way affect the need to be absolutely unequivocal in ones condemnation of the Ahmedinejad regime.This regime forfitted the rights associated with 'any other soveriegn nation' a long time ago.
@megamarsvin: "Understanding is not condoning." Thats the thing, Chomsky doesn't understand. He leaves half of the equation out. Al Qaeda was not just outraged about American foreign policy. They are ideologically opposed to all the values of the Enlightenment. They think music should be outlawed and women should be chattle. Its a form of totalitarianism that Chomsky hasn't taken a strong stance against.
@athabascka Not true. He understands very well. But he doesn't go the easy route of just chanting "terrorism is bad", he tries to address both sides of the issue. And since for the vast majority of the public discourse American (and Israeli) abuses are taboo those are what he focuses on, because they are not being dealt honestly with in the public sphere.
The fact that he doesn't emphatically denounce terrorism every single time he opens his mouth, that does not make his arguments invalid.
@megamarsvin: Terrorism shouldn't even be considered the issue. Thats what the government and the media called it after 9/11, but terrorism is just a tactic. It would be like saying the war against Germany was a war on Blitzkreig. What does the al Qaeda group believe in? A medieval form of totalitarianism. As bad as the crimes of American foreign policy are, the US does not advocate totalitarianism as a model for society.
@athabascka I understand what you're saying but I fail to see the relevance. Again, if someone makes an argument against the US government or Israel, is that argument automatically invalid if you do not prefix this with a denouncement of all other "worse" regimes in the world?
Of COURSE Al Qaeda is worse than the US. So does that make everything we do ok? As long as we're better than the absolute worst in the world?
@megamarsvin: Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing for a comprehensive analysis. Does al Qaeda want to restore the Islamic caliphate of the 12th century? If Noam Chomsky was the only person you listened to on this issue, you would have never known thats al Qaeda's overall goal. How can he talk about this without that essential fact?
Hitchens is a wonderful guy, and I love his dissenting views, however I am bigger fan of Chomsky. Chomsky hasn't changed his views because he hasn't seen the need to, and if you want to see his reasoning for not changing just listen to any of his lectures or talks. He's very willing to outline exactly what he fears and opposes.
@dasschleg He's very willing to outline them, but justifying his anarchist tendencies is impossible for anyone who might care about the American Way, which he benefits from enormously but criticizes endlessly. Fuck him. He's a treasonous bastard.
@beeroosterm That's kind of his job... He's an intellectual, not a soldier.
Plus American Way? Seriously? He wants an anarchist syndicalist society. It's a system of absolute liberty and freedom, what you call the American Way.
In fact Chomsky would resent the term American Way, it's a representative phrase. It implies freedom and liberty, but doesn't really give it.
Oh and a man of no nation cannot only be a traitor to his fellow man. Chomsky calls for justice and humanity, so no, fuck you.
@dasschleg Yes, he wants anarchy - a complete impossibility, which he well knows will never, ever happen. This frees him for his endless criticisms and absurdities. Chomsky appears to resent any political system. He's quite boring to listen to for any length of time, as he does nothing but criticize, and his ideals are impossible, so what good is he except to incite fools? So fuck you, fool.
@dasschleg Why is anarchy an impossibility? Golly gee, Opie, that's easy to explain in 500 characters. I'm not even going to try - do your own homework. And by the way, I believe his job is at MIT in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy - has been for over 50 years. And Hitchens (bless him) has changed his mind about Chomsky. And very few people aren't pro-peace. No one really wants to be involved in fighting/killing. However, sometimes it must be done - and that's the reality. Face it.
Show me the video where Hitchens says explicitly that he no longer respects and admires Chomsky. Show me. I've seen the video where he outlines his disagreements with his outlook, but that's an entirely different idea.
You must really know nothing about Chomsky, or Hitchens for that matter (Hitchens would resents you saying bless him).
And one more thing, if it is so easy to debunk Anarchist philosophies, DO IT. I'd love to here your explanation.
@dasschleg It is evidently beyond you to read between the lines ( vis a vis the blessing of Hitchens), and for some reason you seem to feel that anybody who disagrees with you A) Knows nothing, and B) Should then spend lots of time doing your homework for you. It is easy enough to find why Hitchens does not admire Chomsky much these days. Start with Hitchens' Slate article "Chomsky's Follies" - and then bother me no more.
@beeroosterm I'm sorry that I want elaboration. You simplify a point to meaninglessness, like saying that Chomsky opposes "The American Way" and that anarchy is impossible, both without reference.
And no, I don't believe your A nor B. Like I already said, elaboration is key in discussion, and actually you were the one who called me a fool first and also seems to just outline the most basic element of a point.
Chomsky outlines criticisms, as does hitchens. It isn't his job to fight for them.
Some dude says i wasnt speaking English - what i was doing was loading in some facts that show how dummy companies (Zapata) used to do the dirty work (running freedom fighters in the Caribbean) that caused blow-back terrorism - ie the JFK hit in Dallas. That's plain-as-your-ass English. But Hitchens and Chomsky both say they're not interested. Why not - if Hoover was?
Yes Hitchens has reevaluated his position in accordance with the changing times. His sense of decency and morality has remained resolute. This, in stark contrast to Chomsky who has failed to adjust to the realities of a world where conflict is not always black and white. Chomsky is obsessed with fighting 'American Imperialism'. As such he lends his support to the type of fascist despots and murderers that, like Hitchens, he should be fighting against with every fiber in his being.
How strange. Less than a decade after this Hitchens and Chomsky (two individuals whose opinions I hold in high regard) would be fierce antagonists on U.S. foreign policy.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I don't think that Chirstopher Hitchens has changed his views at all. He has struck me as a supporter of a people's right for self determination and an opponent of dictatorships. He is not is an ideologue, therefore his position on various events in the world will not always align with a simplistic ideology like "left" or "right".
@shakenation He has changed position on some things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I disagree with him on some big things and I admire his intellectual tenacity. How novel that you could be for the Irag war and support Obama. Some day when we start to debate ideas instead of left or right views of the world life will be much better for us all.
@shakenation I agree; he has always been a proponent of human rights. Technically I guess you could say that he "changed" is views on anti-interventionist foreign policy. Hitchens protested against Vietnam, Grenada, Reagan-era police actions, and the first Gulf War, but if you read his memoirs, he beautifully explains his reasons for reevaluating his stance. Pacifism, according to Hitchens, equates to doing nothing to help the innocent while evil reigns. Righteous intervention is necessary.
Sounds here like Hitchens would be ready for blowback theory in matter of Dallas, as Malcolm X was, as Hoover was, at point he called in exec of Zapata Oil 23 Nov 63 from TX to DC pronto. Hoover had no oil business - he had questions about anti-Castro Cubans and their activities of the day before.The man from Zapata apparently was someone who could answer those questions. IA significant absence in JEH papers - but only an absence - is, any sign the questions were answered to his satisfaction.
people can change so much over time.. chomsky's views have remained relatively the same whereas hitchens seems to have shifted over to the far right of the spectrum on military interventions.
Yup the Jews do kill each other all the time. We do it in Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc all vs. each other. Its mainly an issue about who's most directly related to Moses, even though we are both Jewish. We blow up eachother's temples and ethnic cleanse the other sect of Jews. Religious leaders also issue death sentences against other types of Jews. And want to convert to stop fighting, the penalty is death. But Judaism really is a peaceful religion. OH WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the jews of isreal have 76% much for Direct Common ancestor in there DNA just like in Bible said thay are from the direct seed of Abraham btw the name abraham means in Hebrew the high father or the big father in usa there is 82% of much in the DNA about Khazars Science didnt find Evidences for mongol race in DNA Gene pool of the jews so Technicality judaism is not a race but most of Believes are fromSeparate race that the jews maid by maMarried in side the faith for Thousands yreas
the jews of isreal have 76% much for Direct Common ancestor in there DNA just like in Bible said thay are from the direct seed of Abraham btw the name abraham means in Hebrew the high father or the big father in usa there is 82% of much in the DNA about Khazars Science didnt find Evidences for mongol race in DNA Gene pool of the jews so Technicality judaism is not a race but most of Believes are fromSeparate race that the jews maid by maMarried in side the faith for Thousands yreas
@clouz22 You obviously haven't read or listened to a single one of his positions on the Iraq War if you have to ask that question here. Go look up why he supports it, you ignorant fool.
@patrick112590 I did. They were idiotic rationalizations for a hysterical war of aggression. You're really pleasant by the way. I bet you have a lot of friends.
@clouz22 37 years old and still an idiot. You presume to know anything about my personal life? You're just as arrogant as those MoveOn.org types. Maybe you are one! Is that where all of your cyberbuddies frequent?
Lastly, it is obvious that Jews are an ethnic group by the fact that often times, one can tell someone is Jewish just by the way they look. Even hitches mentioned " a Jewish looking" Chomsky
@mrtapoche Jews are both an ethnic group and a religion. For one, you mentioned looking up Judaism and Jew in Wikipedia and that it mentioned nothing about jews being anything other than religion. Wikipedia itself has a whole section dedicated to research conducted leading to Jews around the world having a common ancestor, especially the Kohenim (which one can onky be by birth and not by conversion). Furthermore, since when did religious groups have their own language (Hebrew) ? Ashnekazi Jews
@TheAwokenMind Actually Christopher Hitchens views on israel hasn't changed that much at all. He definitely doesn't support a zionist agenda. To the contrary, he is a palestine advocate against israeli expansion over west bank and gaza strip. To quote him in his most recent book Hitch 22: "I am an Anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians.” People like you try to label Hitchens but ultimately fail.
He wrote that introduction himself.
weejockpoopongmcplop 17 hours ago
the NSC explained that “the majority of Arabs … believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.” And they are right: “our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close U.S. relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries,” blocking democracy...
ezehernandez 1 week ago
Hitch later stood for aggression in Iraq circa 2002-2006.
Tsnore 2 weeks ago
OMG why is he always snuffing ....WTF
914light 1 month ago
OMG this lady in the pink ...is a retard ..
914light 1 month ago
I don't think Hitchens would have advocated the start of a war, but rather he saw opportunity, amidst chaos, to liberate people from their terrible living conditions. His beliefs were akin to almost nobody else who was pro-war at the time. He was genuinely cared about people, and saw their possible liberation as a reason to support the already ongoing war. He is a Humanist, not a warmonger.
DefeatedElitist 1 month ago
@QRF11B This was 1995
Flarhoon 1 month ago
I wonder how much money he made.
SnakeKeeper2010 1 month ago
I ain't even joking, at 13:37 I nearly cried. Oh Hitchens, what happened. It would have been awesome to see Hitchens, Chomsky and others take down the American Empire together.
JagjeetMann 1 month ago
This was Chris Hitchens in his fully Communist days
JeffMaylor99 1 month ago
Terry Allen lost me with the mispronunciation of 'erudite'. I wonder how this 'editor' would spell the word?
TeliVision1000 1 month ago
This is admittedly Hitchens at his most journalistically opportunistic
BandWagon1987 1 month ago
Chomsky rules.
AtheistGallant 1 month ago 29
@AtheistGallant Yeah Chomsky rules all right - over the tribe of self-hating Jews.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
@JerrySPsy very insightful kindergarden argument. it is the idea that matters not people not their backgrounds
vesemre 1 month ago
@vesemre Let me break it down for you since you obviously took the short bus to school. Chomsky's distorted views, misreporting, denial of truth, & ignorance of historical facts ARE rooted in his background as a self-hating Jew. Why else would he sell out his own people by his record of such distortions, demonization of Israel, & complete lack of focus on those who started the violence, started all the wars, & repeatedly vow to wipe out all the Jews? He should stick to being a linguist.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
A: nice attack ad honimem not that Id expect a well reasoned argument on a youtube comment boar but what ever. B: its good to know that there are still some people suffering under the myth of a chosen people who are free of sin. Israel is a costly expense to relive us of our European guilt. don't forget that we were the ones who radicalized the Muslims to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. we gave them weapons and the promise of the resurrection of the Ummayad and the Safavid empires.
anybodysbody 1 month ago
@anybodysbody It's ad HOMINEM - & I suppose your insult about "kindergarten wasn't? Who said anything about Chosen People? That term hardly means what you think it does - it simply means that God supposedly chose the Jews to spread ethical monotheism - not hat he favored them. And many other religions claim to be
"chosen" as well (need I name them?) Zionism started in response to very real oppression & brutal discrimination of Jews. And Muslims were radicalized since Islam began.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
@JerrySPsy Explain, then, why most reasonable Muslims are not "radicalized" as you say. In fact, only the small minority are the terrorists you see on the news.
superclaydude 1 month ago
@superclaydude The very essence of Islam shows no tolerance for non-believers. Mohammed started the religion with murders and wars and nearly 300 million people have been killed in the name of Islam since it began. Nearly every single day, in one part of the world or another, we hear of Muslim massacres of innocent people. Certainly most Muslims are not radical in normal situations but it sure seem they get incited to violence more often than people of other faiths.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
Comment removed
superclaydude 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JerrySPsy Well, this only proves the radical Muslims are a very special case. I am not a Muslim myself, though you have to understand--their Quran doesn't incite them to their horrible deeds. A fundamentalistic interpretation of it brings them to such atrocities. In the 1400s radicals were told that if they killed in God's name they would gain seventy-two virgins in Paradise, and that suicide for a warring jihad was a part of God's plan--hence the reason for violence.
superclaydude 1 month ago
@JerrySPsy : At this moment in time, this does seem the case.
Ascend our temporally finite perspectives and another religion takes the prize for most bloodthirsty. Depending on what century you hail from you could form through equal logic that the followers of Yeshua or Abraham "seem they get incited to violence more often than people of other faiths", that the believers of the Roman Gods or Norse Gods or Pagan Gods would be responsible for the "Nearly every single day" reports of massacre.
scrumjosh 3 weeks ago
@JerrySPsy ignorant racism...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk The word you were looking for is "Racist". But last I heard, muslim wasn't, and will never be, a genetic trait. It is as morally correct to hate islam as it is to hate naziism.
Exmech2 2 weeks ago
@Exmech2 do you have nothing better to do than spew hatred and racism on youtube? ...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Do you feel that berating muslims for killing people over an insane ideal, fairytale god, and chronic xenophobia is being hateful? Especially when the muslim kills over "honor". Pathetic that you would defend such behavior. You are the lowest form of human possible.
Exmech2 2 weeks ago
@Exmech2 i am "the lowest form of human possible" because i don't share your white supremacist ideology? every "God" is a fairytale, including the Christian one. far more people have died at the hands of white imperialism than by terrorists (not to mention the fact that the US created, trained, armed, and funded the terrorist organization that would go on to destroy the WTC towers). pathetic racism...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Glad to see your ignorance is limited to the 21st century. And once again... muslim isn't a race. But then, an uneducated, ignorant twit apologist such as you won't accept that demonstrable fact. It doesn't fit into your own cultish views.
Exmech2 2 weeks ago
@Exmech2 it is "cultish" and "ignorant" to not share your white supremacist ideology? pathetic...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
@superclaydude Does that include the "minority" who would happily kill their own children over some medieval, misplaced, and malevolent sense of honor?
Exmech2 4 weeks ago
@Exmech2 ignorant racism...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 2 weeks ago
@JerrySPsy he denies the truth all the time yet he is one of the most renowned intellectuals of our time. Surely this world is evil. (except Israel)
vesemre 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JerrySPsy "Chomsky's distorted views, misreporting, denial of truth, & ignorance of historical facts ARE rooted in his background as a self-hating Jew." Oh come on. Chomsky is not ignorant. And just because you sound so incredibly convinced that you are right, does not make it so. "Why else would he sell out his own people... [and] vow to wipe out all the jews?" Really? I feel pretty confident in claiming that he has never said that, but source me and I might change my mind...
cl1mbat1ze 1 month ago
@AtheistGallant
No.
Hitchens rules.
ItsameAlex 1 week ago
@ItsameAlex No.
Chomsky rules.
bboschboi 2 days ago
Chomsky should not have been introduced by a warmongering Bush apologist.
ExposingTheism 1 month ago 2
@ExposingTheism A trivial and mundane response by you who probably does not realize over the course of 15 years Mr. Hitchens spent many a day in Iraq and surrounding areas, and supported the war because he saw it as an opportunity to help the oppressed people and families he got to know over that time frame.
He was no neocon or Bush apologist. Far from it.
CaseRed0605 1 month ago
@CaseRed0605 War is in fact the worst thing you can do to free from oppression. Their are smarter solutions, as evidence to our own policy. The fact is, we use war simply to keep us afloat, and the people who create it use the hearts of me like Hitchens as their puppets. Either we have intelligence or we don't, and the fact is, we would rather kill than convince.
jasperb12345 1 month ago
@CaseRed0605 bull..he was a scumbag war monger who didnt die soon enough
JadeTomZ 1 month ago
@JadeTomZ RIP Christopher Hitchens you are missed!!
Sconezeta 1 month ago
@JadeTomZ It's a shame that people like you never got to appreciate Hitchens. R.I.P Hichens.
immortalperser 1 month ago
Comment removed
thedeservingmany 1 month ago
The irony here is that CAQ would have surely opposed the latest misadventure in Iraq and the Washington Post was one of the first and most vigorous supporters of the war.
Instead of warning about a "death-bed" conversion on atheism he should have said he was mistaken on the war. But no, he doubled-down.
dashrirprock 2 months ago 9
@dashrirprock who is CAQ
fleammm 4 days ago
@fleammm
Covert Action Quarterly, the journal Hitchens is pimping.
dashrirprock 4 days ago
Eriodite? Two nations divided by a common language.
1961axis 2 months ago
he keeps mixing his words up, and truncating sentences.
DrZackBusner 2 months ago
hitch is wasted. why does he keep sniffing?
DrZackBusner 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@dyl11ans you will never know? really? so you've ignored all the speeches that he gave about protecting kurdistan, removing saddam, and stabilizing iraq? he didnt fall in line you fell in line with the american political propaganda wich tells you that you have to be on the blue or red team. neither of wich are in the business of being humanitarian. hes the farthest thing from a war monger he wanted as i do to stop the genicides.
ojdidit92 2 months ago
Comment removed
ojdidit92 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hitchens was a neocon
st3v3nftw 2 months ago
hitchens was a neocon
st3v3nftw 2 months ago
@st3v3nftw Being for the Iraq war does not make you a neocon. He's a socialist to the far left of any US politician.
Nemesis000000 2 months ago
@Nemesis000000 yep, theres a very valid leftist humanitarian argument to be made in favor of us entervention in iraq. unfortunately peaple cant understand that things are more complicated than left or right.
ojdidit92 2 months ago
AS OF TODAY.....I AM I A HITHCHETSNIST::: always in search of truth
parisruiz1 2 months ago
@parisruiz1 Shouldn't it be, Hitchenist?
ChronoTriggerMusic 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why couldn't Chomsky have dropped dead and not Hitch.. what a loss
JMKRATOCHVIL 2 months ago
@JMKRATOCHVIL chomsky didn't get cancer
machine7elves 2 months ago
@JMKRATOCHVIL Fuck off, both were amazing writers, and more importantly, amazing people. Hitchens would have thrown black label in your face :P
SirPwn4lot 2 months ago
@JMKRATOCHVIL What a shithead thing to say
danwperry 2 months ago
Why?.. because he was right. Try listening closely to Hitch and you'll understand
JMKRATOCHVIL 2 months ago
RIP Hitchens.
dionusos2 2 months ago
@CaseRed0605:
Comrade? Hitchens ceased to answer to that name long back.
I would rather say that now it's one warmonger less to contend with!
johngulumaal 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
rip comrade
CaseRed0605 2 months ago
Before people start screaming over how awfull it is that Taliban exists, and how horrible they are, study the fucking cold war.
Anyone remember when they werent bad? Oh yeah, thats right, they always were. Its just that back then, we literally provided the mujahideen with everything they needed the figh the "evil" communists. Dont believe that evil exists everywhere you are told. It seems as if the definition of evil certainly changes in the eyes of the US gov.
gulbirk 2 months ago 2
lol @ socialists
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
Im sorry but everything hitches has said about how its logical to attack the middle east cz f theyr oppression is proven wrong..tho his views on religion r spot on..im a muslim and i support both and respect them..we shud all learn to respect each othr...
thedudewithbeef 3 months ago 2
Chomsky is on a different level. YSF
ya1983 3 months ago
This "version of Hitchens" hasn't gone anywhere. He just realized that the spineless faction of the left (sadly all too large) would rather bash on Pat Robertson, where there's no real risk, than actually face up to the threat that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban formerly represented.
Hitchens is as courageous now as ever in speaking a contrary truth, including against those whose response to all the ills of the world is a call for American self-flagellation, and who blame the US for everything.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD Although what you say has merit I categorically disagree with his military fear of (indeed deplorable) theocratic Islamic states. I'm sorry but I can't understand the math of it. This paranoid belief that these states are such an absolute threat that US unilateral military action is so necessary completely throws me. I've tried to understand it as I'm not against thwarting imminent threats but I just can't see it.
petepamf 3 months ago
@petepamf Good luck convincing a nuclear, theocratic Iran (specifically, its deeply religious leadership) that using a nuclear bomb on Israel or the US would be a bad thing.
Sept 11, 2001 wasn't enough to convince you that some of these folks can manufacture means, motive, and opportunity to do you harm?
Suggest you watch Hitchens on Iraq if you want more about why we were right to topple Saddam (our prosecution of war was a sad story though)...argument is too big for 500 character limit.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD Iran doesn't have nukes. The last time Iran invaded a country was centuries ago. Stop being a cheerleader and get some facts, it will liberate you.
Dymdez 3 months ago
@Dymdez Stop being a moronic, half-assed sloganeer and consider whether Iran is trying *really, really* hard to get nukes. I can call you mean names, too. See how enlightening and fostering of human communication it is?
It's only healthy to consider what it would be like to have an Ayatollah with his finger on the trigger, and to do that now rather than wait until it's a fait accompli. I don't argue for war WITH Iran, but to do our utmost to foster the green revolution.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD I'm sorry, but if youre in the business of targeting crazy countries who are dangerous, please guide your efforts to Pakistan and Israel and the US, not some poor country that doesn't even have nukes. You don't have an argument here. No name calling necessary.
Dymdez 3 months ago
@Dymdez You call what you're saying a coherent argument? Dog! Fart! Blarge Nargle Dnah! Makes just as much sense to me...
The Taliban proved decisively that they were dangerous by harboring Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein was a completely deranged psychopath who claimed to have transcribed a Qu'ran in his own blood. Look up "Halabja" sometime in Wikipedia. The world is far, far better off without him. I hate that we were so incompetent in his removal, but proud that we did it.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD Ok, but you forgot the part where the US supported and armed Saddam for 20 years. Right? Why did you leave that out? Al-Qaeda had virtually no support in the Middle East until the US went fucknuts over there. These are two important facts, yes, they matter. You can't pick and choose your evidence, you have to look at the aggregate and make intelligent decisions based on the whole array of information.
Dymdez 3 months ago
@Dymdez "Why did you leave that out?" Because the whole truth is not possible in just 500 chars. Obviously we didn't know exactly who/what we were dealing with for much of those 20 years.
Al-Qaeda in my view was a nucleation site, where anti-American sentiment (anti-Enlightenment might be more apt) could and would collect once we applied heat. Better to concentrate it in one spot for extermination. Or, what was our correct play after 9/11...apologize to them for inventing penicillin?
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD You're losing me completely, now. You ask what the right play after 911 was... Certainly it wasn't invading the wrong country and killing hundreds of thousands. Certainly it wasn't invading Afghanistan and killing 95% civilians in an effort to eliminate Taliban (who we funded 20-30 years earlier). The correct play was to view 911 as a criminal act and respond the same way we do with any other criminal act. Instead, we invaded two countries and got the entire Arab world to hate us.
Dymdez 3 months ago
@Dymdez I think it's fairly obvious that we won't convince each other about much. But constantly beating ourselves up over having supported Saddam and the Mujahadeen (NOT the Taliban) is to suggest that they were not actors in their own right. We hoped they would be good and true allies, and we were utterly wrong about that.
Re criminal act: so we should have sent the Law and Order cops to invade Afghanistan? Maybe a SWAT team? Come on...
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD No, we don't have to beat ourselves up over supporting Saddam and the Mujahideen, but we should recognize that invading Iraq had nothing to do with imminent threats and terrorism. In fact, it has made terror much worse, as predicted by the CIA and proved in RAND Project (governmental) studies.
Re:re: That's exactly right. There are two ways to treat terrorism, policing and paying attention to grievances. Invading countries only enhances crime (as proven by all relevant studies).
Dymdez 2 months ago
@ChollieD I would like to add something here. The Mujahadeen and the Taliban have many of the same ideologies, if not most of the same ideologies. The Mujahadeen split into because of a disagreement from a SLIGHT ammount of the people in the group.
To pretend that we didnt know that were islamists at that time is lying. We knew that very well.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@ChollieD I've obviously watched that as this is a very pressing issue and wouldn't bother engaging such a topic without having some inclination as to the "convincing of folks". I like Hitchens knows Iranians. He obviously has associates that lead him to the similar conclusion you've concocted (hopefully on your own merits and your not just a Hitchens disciple) but my acquaintances have led me to the conclusion that Iran lobbing a nuke into Israel is the most absurd thing they've ever heard.
petepamf 3 months ago
@petepamf Fair enough, it's absurd for them to lob a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv. But what happens to nuclear profileration in the region once Iran has the weapons? Do they have the security to prevent jihadists from getting access to fissile material? Do any smaller weapons "sneak" across Iraq and into Syria, or is the technology then shared with Damascus?
No, I don't want to be chicken little, but this line "Oh the Ayatollahs don't want to hurt anyone" is just roseate.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD I'm obviously aware of such fears as "what if jihadists blah blah" and indeed don't subscribe to such fears. Let's just hope I'm right because seeing that the US can't even control a bunch of technologically backward taliban the thought of them taking on Iran is laughable.
petepamf 3 months ago
@petepamf Well, one thing we can do is NOT hire for president another a rootin tootin Texas moron with jizz for brains. All Ahmedinejad could ever want is a Christian foil for his comedy routine.
Seems like there's a disconnect between not worrying about the jihadists and your evaluation that the US couldn't control the Taliban. I think the reason that we can worry so much less about the jihadists is precisely because we've killed a lot of them.
ChollieD 3 months ago
@ChollieD Forgive my lack of interest in your opinion but you lost me at jizz.
Good day.
petepamf 3 months ago
It sucks, because I've loved Chomsky all my life, he is an absolute genius no question....but I would side with Hitchens on this topic
tbagzsauga 3 months ago
@tbagzsauga Why? History in the last ten years has shown overwhelmingly that Chomsky was spot on. I can see no issue where Hitchens was correct? I am a huge Hitchens fan, too. Anyone disagree with factual evidence?
Dymdez 3 months ago
1995 or 85???
poopooman38111 3 months ago
Get on with it Hitchens and stop smooching the audience..
gymnosophy 3 months ago
Funny, the whole Chomsky talk has about 2000 views and a handful of comments. On this part with Hitchens it shows almost 60,000 views and many pages of comments ^^
megamarsvin 4 months ago
@megamarsvin Two and a half men is the most watched comedy, guess that makes it the most funny? (if that was too vague) Fox news gets the most viewers, guess that makes it more credible?
pandasftuw 3 months ago
@pandasftuw Wasn't a value judgement, just an observation. No need to jump to anyone's defense.
I think the discrepancy can be easily explained and I don't think it reflects much on the importance or credibility of either speaker.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin "just an observation" Bitch please, its like when racists say "blacks have the highest crime rates" JUST SAYING. No you were not just saying, you know what you said and you are aware of the connotations (unless you're genuinely just an idiot) you made a pathetic attempt to use an ad populum argument to favor hitchens.
pandasftuw 3 months ago
@pandasftuw Actually no, everything you said so far has completely missed the point. If I had to choose (which I don't) I like Chomsky better, because Hitchens is too much of a populist. If anything that's the point I was making. But I respect both of them.
I can't be responsible for what you "read between the lines" in my comments.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@megamarsvin "Funny, the whole Chomsky talk has about 2000 views and a handful of comments. On this part with Hitchens it shows almost 60,000 views and many pages of comments ^^" In what planet does that comes across as pro noamsky? It is a pretty sound interpretation to view this as a silly ad populum agrument on face value especially when considering YT comments 100% of the time are pushing agendas/opinions not just random observations.
pandasftuw 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
George Galloway Made hitchen look like a cunt in new york
musspuss 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What happened at 14:35?
LordVader89 4 months ago
Well perhaps to be fair I should have used the term 'tacit support'. In practical terms it amounts to the same thing. In this regard I would point to Ahmadinejad in Iran and Nasrallah in Lebanon - the latter perhaps not exactly a despot, but certainly a murderous figurehead. As an extension of this, the leaders of Hamas usually escape criticism. As I suggested earlier I think his vision has been distorted by what he feels is a need to support anyone opposing Zionism and American 'Imperialism'.
moovershaker 4 months ago
@moovershaker I think "tacit support" a matter of interpretation. I'd like to hear how you define this "support"?
I can't say I've ever seen Chomsky speak in support of Ahmadinejad except to say that Iran like any other sovereign nation should have the right to self-determination.
As for Hamas, he's said he considers their attacks "criminal acts and politically stupid" (a direct quote) but he has implied they are understandable in the context of ongoing Zionist occupation and violence.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin Well I don't think there is too much room for interpretation. His failure to condemn Ahmadinejad's murderous regime outright is in itself to offer an unacceptable level of support - or 'tacit support.' To suggest that Chomsky simply supports Iran's right for self determination is so vague it's virtually irrelevant. As for Hamas, to imply that terrorism is understandable given the context etc... is to offer excuses for the inexcusable.
moovershaker 3 months ago
@moovershaker "Failure to condemn"? He has criticized Ahmadinejad on specific points, he's spoken in favor of the Green protests in 2009 but even if he hadn't, does that mean any other argument he makes becomes invalid? Is criticism of your government only allowed if you qualify every outing with the statement that there are worse ones in the world?
Mr Chomsky's stance on Iran is not vague in the least but it is nuanced, this also applies to the Hamas issue. Understanding is not condoning.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin 'Vague' relates to the support, as you put it, for Iran's self determination. He fails to stick to the real issues. Chomsky may criticize from time to time but his main stance is that Iran is out of favor as it refuses to do Americas bidding. The aggression, racism, homophobia, the brutality shown to women and political opponents as well as the regimes absolute support for terrorism are the most important issues. When addressing these issues, ones stance must be unequivocal.
moovershaker 3 months ago
@moovershaker I'm still not sure what you find vague about it. His stance, as I understand it, is that Iran like any other sovereign nation has a right to a nuclear program and the US has no right to interfere. But he's not a supporter of Ahmadinejad or the theocracy, as I said he's been very clear on his support of the Green protests last elections. If you've ever heard him speak on these topics I'm not sure how you could find this confusing.
But "unequivocal" is nonsense, nuance is important.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@moovershaker (continued) But let me say it's easy to attack someone on vague alleged sympathies for "terrorists" whatever that means, modern day McCarthyism to silence dissent, but it's not so easy to actually counter his arguments.
If you disagree with his statements in this talk, I'd be happy to hear your counter arguments, rather than making vague accusations.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin You continue to miss the point, It is Chomsky's overall distorted world view that plays into the hands of the Iranian regime. OF COURSE you should criticise western government and policy without having to mention that some other country is worse. But that does not in any way affect the need to be absolutely unequivocal in ones condemnation of the Ahmedinejad regime.This regime forfitted the rights associated with 'any other soveriegn nation' a long time ago.
moovershaker 3 months ago
@megamarsvin: "Understanding is not condoning." Thats the thing, Chomsky doesn't understand. He leaves half of the equation out. Al Qaeda was not just outraged about American foreign policy. They are ideologically opposed to all the values of the Enlightenment. They think music should be outlawed and women should be chattle. Its a form of totalitarianism that Chomsky hasn't taken a strong stance against.
athabascka 3 months ago
@athabascka Not true. He understands very well. But he doesn't go the easy route of just chanting "terrorism is bad", he tries to address both sides of the issue. And since for the vast majority of the public discourse American (and Israeli) abuses are taboo those are what he focuses on, because they are not being dealt honestly with in the public sphere.
The fact that he doesn't emphatically denounce terrorism every single time he opens his mouth, that does not make his arguments invalid.
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin: Terrorism shouldn't even be considered the issue. Thats what the government and the media called it after 9/11, but terrorism is just a tactic. It would be like saying the war against Germany was a war on Blitzkreig. What does the al Qaeda group believe in? A medieval form of totalitarianism. As bad as the crimes of American foreign policy are, the US does not advocate totalitarianism as a model for society.
athabascka 3 months ago
@athabascka I understand what you're saying but I fail to see the relevance. Again, if someone makes an argument against the US government or Israel, is that argument automatically invalid if you do not prefix this with a denouncement of all other "worse" regimes in the world?
Of COURSE Al Qaeda is worse than the US. So does that make everything we do ok? As long as we're better than the absolute worst in the world?
megamarsvin 3 months ago
@megamarsvin: Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing for a comprehensive analysis. Does al Qaeda want to restore the Islamic caliphate of the 12th century? If Noam Chomsky was the only person you listened to on this issue, you would have never known thats al Qaeda's overall goal. How can he talk about this without that essential fact?
athabascka 3 months ago
Hitchens is a wonderful guy, and I love his dissenting views, however I am bigger fan of Chomsky. Chomsky hasn't changed his views because he hasn't seen the need to, and if you want to see his reasoning for not changing just listen to any of his lectures or talks. He's very willing to outline exactly what he fears and opposes.
dasschleg 4 months ago
@dasschleg He's very willing to outline them, but justifying his anarchist tendencies is impossible for anyone who might care about the American Way, which he benefits from enormously but criticizes endlessly. Fuck him. He's a treasonous bastard.
beeroosterm 4 months ago
@beeroosterm That's kind of his job... He's an intellectual, not a soldier.
Plus American Way? Seriously? He wants an anarchist syndicalist society. It's a system of absolute liberty and freedom, what you call the American Way.
In fact Chomsky would resent the term American Way, it's a representative phrase. It implies freedom and liberty, but doesn't really give it.
Oh and a man of no nation cannot only be a traitor to his fellow man. Chomsky calls for justice and humanity, so no, fuck you.
dasschleg 4 months ago
@dasschleg Yes, he wants anarchy - a complete impossibility, which he well knows will never, ever happen. This frees him for his endless criticisms and absurdities. Chomsky appears to resent any political system. He's quite boring to listen to for any length of time, as he does nothing but criticize, and his ideals are impossible, so what good is he except to incite fools? So fuck you, fool.
beeroosterm 4 months ago
@beeroosterm
1. Why is anarchy an impossibility? I can answer that for you, because you don't listen to anyone of a dissenting view.
2. Name one absurdity he claims (I will not take an answer of "HE WANTS ANARCHY!1!")
3. He resents governments, however he has sympathy with some (Total Democracy, REAL Communism, Socialism).
4. I don't care if you think he's boring, that means nothing.
5. Oh my god... it's his job to criticize, that's what Hitchens does too!
6. He's PRO-PEACE.
No, your the fool
dasschleg 4 months ago
@dasschleg Why is anarchy an impossibility? Golly gee, Opie, that's easy to explain in 500 characters. I'm not even going to try - do your own homework. And by the way, I believe his job is at MIT in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy - has been for over 50 years. And Hitchens (bless him) has changed his mind about Chomsky. And very few people aren't pro-peace. No one really wants to be involved in fighting/killing. However, sometimes it must be done - and that's the reality. Face it.
beeroosterm 4 months ago
@beeroosterm
Show me the video where Hitchens says explicitly that he no longer respects and admires Chomsky. Show me. I've seen the video where he outlines his disagreements with his outlook, but that's an entirely different idea.
You must really know nothing about Chomsky, or Hitchens for that matter (Hitchens would resents you saying bless him).
And one more thing, if it is so easy to debunk Anarchist philosophies, DO IT. I'd love to here your explanation.
dasschleg 4 months ago
@dasschleg It is evidently beyond you to read between the lines ( vis a vis the blessing of Hitchens), and for some reason you seem to feel that anybody who disagrees with you A) Knows nothing, and B) Should then spend lots of time doing your homework for you. It is easy enough to find why Hitchens does not admire Chomsky much these days. Start with Hitchens' Slate article "Chomsky's Follies" - and then bother me no more.
beeroosterm 4 months ago
@beeroosterm I'm sorry that I want elaboration. You simplify a point to meaninglessness, like saying that Chomsky opposes "The American Way" and that anarchy is impossible, both without reference.
And no, I don't believe your A nor B. Like I already said, elaboration is key in discussion, and actually you were the one who called me a fool first and also seems to just outline the most basic element of a point.
Chomsky outlines criticisms, as does hitchens. It isn't his job to fight for them.
dasschleg 4 months ago
@beeroosterm ~ Grow- Up !
k9a2g6 3 months ago
@k9a2g6 Blow me.
beeroosterm 3 months ago
Some dude says i wasnt speaking English - what i was doing was loading in some facts that show how dummy companies (Zapata) used to do the dirty work (running freedom fighters in the Caribbean) that caused blow-back terrorism - ie the JFK hit in Dallas. That's plain-as-your-ass English. But Hitchens and Chomsky both say they're not interested. Why not - if Hoover was?
newsmanbluesman 4 months ago
Yes Hitchens has reevaluated his position in accordance with the changing times. His sense of decency and morality has remained resolute. This, in stark contrast to Chomsky who has failed to adjust to the realities of a world where conflict is not always black and white. Chomsky is obsessed with fighting 'American Imperialism'. As such he lends his support to the type of fascist despots and murderers that, like Hitchens, he should be fighting against with every fiber in his being.
moovershaker 4 months ago
@moovershaker Can you give a specific example of a despot that Chomsky supports?
dasschleg 4 months ago
How strange. Less than a decade after this Hitchens and Chomsky (two individuals whose opinions I hold in high regard) would be fierce antagonists on U.S. foreign policy.
0bjective2All 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Wonderful introduction.
twintone01 5 months ago
I don't think that Chirstopher Hitchens has changed his views at all. He has struck me as a supporter of a people's right for self determination and an opponent of dictatorships. He is not is an ideologue, therefore his position on various events in the world will not always align with a simplistic ideology like "left" or "right".
shakenation 5 months ago 2
@shakenation He has changed position on some things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I disagree with him on some big things and I admire his intellectual tenacity. How novel that you could be for the Irag war and support Obama. Some day when we start to debate ideas instead of left or right views of the world life will be much better for us all.
Beavis1144 5 months ago
@shakenation I agree; he has always been a proponent of human rights. Technically I guess you could say that he "changed" is views on anti-interventionist foreign policy. Hitchens protested against Vietnam, Grenada, Reagan-era police actions, and the first Gulf War, but if you read his memoirs, he beautifully explains his reasons for reevaluating his stance. Pacifism, according to Hitchens, equates to doing nothing to help the innocent while evil reigns. Righteous intervention is necessary.
folkhippy 4 months ago
@shakenation William F. Buckley once described Hitchens as a "moralist". I do not this this is inaccurate nor is it an insult...
beeroosterm 4 months ago
If only this Hitchens could debate Hitchens the Chicken Hawk.
SlugChristie 5 months ago
Jesus christ, give the jews a break, will ya?
ReverendParasite 5 months ago
Sounds here like Hitchens would be ready for blowback theory in matter of Dallas, as Malcolm X was, as Hoover was, at point he called in exec of Zapata Oil 23 Nov 63 from TX to DC pronto. Hoover had no oil business - he had questions about anti-Castro Cubans and their activities of the day before.The man from Zapata apparently was someone who could answer those questions. IA significant absence in JEH papers - but only an absence - is, any sign the questions were answered to his satisfaction.
newsmanbluesman 5 months ago
@newsmanbluesman how about speaking english?
JagjeetMann 4 months ago
And Noam Chomsky gets right to work after such a great introduction.
kotkee 5 months ago
people can change so much over time.. chomsky's views have remained relatively the same whereas hitchens seems to have shifted over to the far right of the spectrum on military interventions.
eternallord 5 months ago
Yup the Jews do kill each other all the time. We do it in Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc all vs. each other. Its mainly an issue about who's most directly related to Moses, even though we are both Jewish. We blow up eachother's temples and ethnic cleanse the other sect of Jews. Religious leaders also issue death sentences against other types of Jews. And want to convert to stop fighting, the penalty is death. But Judaism really is a peaceful religion. OH WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DMONEYDONG 6 months ago
@DMONEYDONG I don't think muslims would agree with you that they are Jewish... just sayin'.
boratsam 5 months ago
@boratsam sarcasm man. sarcasm. but i think ur right
DMONEYDONG 5 months ago
Too bad for all of those anti-Semitic arabs in the world. Oh wait, they're Semites too.
deluxeaction 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the jews of isreal have 76% much for Direct Common ancestor in there DNA just like in Bible said thay are from the direct seed of Abraham btw the name abraham means in Hebrew the high father or the big father in usa there is 82% of much in the DNA about Khazars Science didnt find Evidences for mongol race in DNA Gene pool of the jews so Technicality judaism is not a race but most of Believes are fromSeparate race that the jews maid by maMarried in side the faith for Thousands yreas
ehudnold9 6 months ago
the jews of isreal have 76% much for Direct Common ancestor in there DNA just like in Bible said thay are from the direct seed of Abraham btw the name abraham means in Hebrew the high father or the big father in usa there is 82% of much in the DNA about Khazars Science didnt find Evidences for mongol race in DNA Gene pool of the jews so Technicality judaism is not a race but most of Believes are fromSeparate race that the jews maid by maMarried in side the faith for Thousands yreas
ehudnold9 6 months ago
Ok I want this version of Hitchens back.
PrometheanRunGood 6 months ago 22
Damn lady, why don't you have sex with him already?
youztuber5000 6 months ago
Seems like this chap is in love with the sound of his own voice
dontchastop 7 months ago
how the hell did the Hitchens eloquently speaking out against "hysterical wars of aggression" at 5:30 become a raging advocate for the Iraq war???
clouz22 7 months ago
@clouz22 You obviously haven't read or listened to a single one of his positions on the Iraq War if you have to ask that question here. Go look up why he supports it, you ignorant fool.
patrick112590 7 months ago
@patrick112590 I did. They were idiotic rationalizations for a hysterical war of aggression. You're really pleasant by the way. I bet you have a lot of friends.
clouz22 7 months ago
@clouz22 37 years old and still an idiot. You presume to know anything about my personal life? You're just as arrogant as those MoveOn.org types. Maybe you are one! Is that where all of your cyberbuddies frequent?
patrick112590 7 months ago
but what about cat aids?
TheDaviboy86 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
I have I read 4 of them. So again, you made a statement, care to back it up with some examples?
TheOtherView 7 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
Care to give a couple of examples?
TheOtherView 7 months ago
Here is Hitchens when he was a butterfly.
ricardofuego 7 months ago
BOOBS
JameshasanXbox 7 months ago
Chris Hitchens is inordinately hubristic,
AnonymousWhitePerson 7 months ago
hitch slap...himself
Javeriffic 7 months ago
Did she say Hitchens was "er-ree-udite" in her intro?.....tut tut....an editor of a serious publication too....
PXR05 7 months ago 2
Lastly, it is obvious that Jews are an ethnic group by the fact that often times, one can tell someone is Jewish just by the way they look. Even hitches mentioned " a Jewish looking" Chomsky
pianokid100 7 months ago
@mrtapoche Jews are both an ethnic group and a religion. For one, you mentioned looking up Judaism and Jew in Wikipedia and that it mentioned nothing about jews being anything other than religion. Wikipedia itself has a whole section dedicated to research conducted leading to Jews around the world having a common ancestor, especially the Kohenim (which one can onky be by birth and not by conversion). Furthermore, since when did religious groups have their own language (Hebrew) ? Ashnekazi Jews
pianokid100 7 months ago
@pianokid100
Ashkenazis are not true Semites but rather a deformed grotesque Turkic Mongoloid Creatures more related to Atila the Hun than to Solomon of Israel.
AnonymousWhitePerson 7 months ago
@TheAwokenMind Actually Christopher Hitchens views on israel hasn't changed that much at all. He definitely doesn't support a zionist agenda. To the contrary, he is a palestine advocate against israeli expansion over west bank and gaza strip. To quote him in his most recent book Hitch 22: "I am an Anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians.” People like you try to label Hitchens but ultimately fail.
Chay216 7 months ago