Christopher Hitchens at Freedom From Religion Foundation 5/7

[redryan20000]

wow.

hitch was really wrong about rudi guliani

[VidkunQL]

@k9a2g6: do you have a citation for that quote? The only one I know that sounds like that is "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787)

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, Flirmy.

[k9a2g6]

Yep ! Religion has been a nuisance to humans since societies where built,and we gave religion a huge path ( can't criticize religion) ? But remember 'Thomas Jefferson' words "Question your neighbor if he believes in one God or twenty Gods, question boldly his beliefs " Religion should be Banned from all schools, if we really care about Children and our societies !!!

[SyKmGl]

Guilty white liberals are annoying, but also amusing.

Love Christopher Hitchens ^ _ ^ .

[preemptivestrike20]

@SyKmGl I agree.

[SmoothCriminal27]

lmao! go back and listen to the silly laugh at 6:43 and 7:11

[johnclavis]

From last Sunday's NYT: "The IRS will soon announce a new amnesty program aimed at encouraging wealthy Americans with hidden offshore bank accounts to come forward, declare their money and pay taxes owed. The program would be formally announced “very shortly” and would not offer terms as generous as those in a similar initiative last fall. The previous so-called voluntary disclosure program was used by more than 15KAmericans with hidden accounts, some holding hundreds of millions of dollars."

[countertreason]

Wow. I am absolutely shocked at how cold of a reception he is receiving... in the USA, I guess it is moreso the caes that their dovish liberal population tends toward atheism more freely; hawkish conservatives and classical liberals feeling as though, much to their dismay, they have to keep their atheistic views private and low-key so as to not anger their religious allies.

That needs to change. The right-wing needs to drop its religious overtones and stick to being a mere political movement.

[coreygames]

The second questioner is soooooooo slow.

Step 1:Gather thoughts before walking up to mic.

Step 2: Say thoughts

Step 3: U DUN

[RhondaH]

Christopher, in this clip, says he'd never vote for Barack Obama for President, but when it actually came time to vote, he voted for President Obama. Never let it be said that one cannot change their mind if presented with convincing evidence. I still can't figure out what he saw in Rudy, but in the end he made a good choice.

[colz22]

what a moron.

[caltrop69]

What's fascinating about these questions is the difference between Atheists on the right and Atheists on the left.

Why are so many Atheists ON the left? Do they not consider economics a science?

[myrmecophilous]

Rudy Giuliani, Hitchens? Really? :facepalm:

I'm so disappointed in him for that comment.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@myrmecophilous Funny I wanted to vote for him too, he was the most liberal republican on offer and had the best record out of all the candidates, certainly better than the fool Obama, can't see how Hitchens could have chosen him over McCain, (the second most liberal republican) I suppose his disdain of Palin was greater than my disdain for Biden.

I understand mindless pseudo liberals and radical conservative in new york didn't care for Giuliani... which one are you if you don't mind me asking?

[myrmecophilous]

I'm neither, thanks for asking. But what exactly is a "pseudo liberal" ?

And yes I remember seeing Hitchens stating precisely that McCain's choice of Palin for VP left him thinking that McCain was beginning to lose his mind, and for that reason he could no longer support him.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I define a pseudo liberal as someone who claims to be against fascism, theocracy, and religious fundamentalism, but actively supports it, (see anti war movment.)

I'm not sure I agree that McCain was loosing his mind, in fact its clear that's nothing more than a shameful smear, but its irrelevant since Obama never had one to begin with, (see his blundering inability to turn Afghanistan around.)

[kadene2]

So why was Obama such a "fool" when he ended up voting for him on November 4th 2008?

[LlortnA]

He chose the lesser-evil.

[angryafro]

Anyone have any idea why he was so against Obama?

[analubalitious]

I was curious about that too. I was even more curious why he was so in favor of Guiliani (sp?).

In some more recent interviews, though, he does seem to be rather supportive of Obama, now that he's in office.

[Brantinger]

He was allway ciritcal about Obamas religion for example and since Obama is an appeaser Hitchens surely doesnt like him for his foreign policy and security....

[analubalitious]

Hitchens is always critical of all religion, so no surprise there.

Appeaser? Who and when did Obama ever appease?

[funcpl2741054]

because Obama is a slow dunce....but im afraid the republicans even put up bigger dunces

[nekftw]

7:11  he strikes again

[nekftw]

5:36  retard laugh from the audience

[Ragnaros12345]

Lol I was about to say something about that.

[Lawlow1978]

hitchens is totally wrong about blaming islam for the middle east's failed states.

we the west are mostly to blame for that

[Re5Publica]

Then show me a time in history when Islam lead to political stability.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

The dark ages Islam was what the west is now and led to the flourishing of europe. Let's not pretend that the west and east are separable. Read up on it--

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak Islamic caliphates and sultanates were not politically stable, as the caliphs, and sultans had absolute power, and everyone wanted their position. The Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad used to keep his family members under house arrest, because he feared they would overthrow him.

Btw, the technological, scientific, social and political development of Western civilization is unprecedented, no civilization has been where we are now, that was a silly thing to say.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

how dare you presume the entire history of the islamic caliphate based on power structures. The fact of the matter is that at one point the Islamic east was what the west is now. OBVIOUSLY I didn't mean that it is as advanced as it is now---all achievements in history are relative to their time and period. The industrial revolution is unprecendented for sure, but achievements are never the result of isolated factors. Events in history are reciprocal.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak Because I spoke about politics, and apparently you were talking about something else. Islam influenced Europe, it did in certain ways. It's scientific contributions specifically, but when it comes to political thought, the Muslim world is still lacking, why did Renaissance Italians mimick the ancients, such as the Greeks and Romans in the art, architecture, and government, and not the Muslims, if it was Islamic civilization that spurred the european Renaissance?

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Apparently you have trouble dichpering an argument even when I have clearly spelled out the difference between my argument with regard to religion and politics. I have expressly stated that Islam was at one point less violent, less totalistarian than Catholicism. Now as to your question--the reason Europe embraced greek and roman traditions was because of the fall of constantinople. The influx of libraries and knowledge also followed the moors in their conquest of spain.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Islam also was indirectly responsible for the Reformation: if the Turks hadn't conquered Constantinople in 1453 all those fabulous Greek manuscripts that inaugurated "the New Learning" in the late 15th century, forming the soil from which the Reformation grew, never would have wound up in the West, and the Reformers never would have realized the Catholic view of Justification was in error.

Recognize that Europe would never have gone through the rennaissance if not for events

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

...in the eastern world as well. When Europe was in the dark ages, Islam was blossoming---its called the Golden Age Of Islam. I suggest you read your history before you provide me with a response. No sense arguing if you don't know wha tyou are tlaking about or can't even cite a historical event but instead present me with platitudes and conjectuture about the islamic kings and caliphates.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak I know what the Islamic golden age is, stop being condescending, it makes you look cheap.

You know it's possible that someone can have the same information as you, and still disagree with your conclusions. So quit being childish.

All empires go through a golden age after fresh conquests... what were Muslim philosophers and scientists basing themselves on? Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Hippocrates.

I don't believe in romanticizing Islamic history, just to appear fair, or cultured.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Yes, but who were Aristotle, Plato, Galen and Hippocrates basing themselves on? Ancient Persians, ert. All of history goes in a circle--and the west in turn took what the Islamic civilizations built on after this point. The only reason I bring up the term is to point out essentially that yes, Islamic Civilizations were once stable.

I DO believe in 'romanticizing' Islamic history if it is true. Islamic Civilizations were once far above and contributed far more than western ones.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

It's repulsive to suggest that you think you have to be an apologist by simply acknowledging that some of Islamic History is Indeed romantic, if by romantic what we mean is that despite religious bigotry its civilization was allowed to develop better than the west did at one point. Historical circumstances DO allow for flourishing at times. Clearly, this is not possible now as in places like Iraq, the infastructure is so poor that extremists have taken over islam. I lament this

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak By romanticizing, I mean exaggerating for the purpose of making it look better than it really is.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

....and was MORE enlightened, BETTER off, ETC. ETC.

To not admit this is simply to admit an adamant and barely masked bigotry towards eastern civilizations, if we are to admit that Islam is merely the Eastern form of Religious nonsense that swept the world and served to control populations of various continents. Islam is merely a competitor to Catholicism and remains so. You have said that you know what the Islamic Golden Age was. In that care, be sure to give it credit.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

The rennaissance would not have happened if it had not been for the fall of constantinople. The influx of Islamic culture and influence in moorish spain was one of the key reasons that europe came out of the dark ages.

It is downright insulting to suggest that the east has had no effect on the west today or that it didnt have EQUAL part. All the things you say about the Islamic Caliphate are applicable to Catholics. I suggest you look into this for yourself. I

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak That's one theory, that people fleeing Constantinople as it was being sieged by Muslim Turks brought with them greek manuscripts to Italy.

I didn't say it didn't have an impact, that's a strawman, it certainly didn't have the profound romantic impact you imagine however. The Romans and Greeks had a much more profound impact on Western civilization, than Muslims. This, I don't think is disputed by any historian.. maybe just a few Muslims with an inferiority complex.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

I think what you are neglecting is the instrumental role of the moors in Spain and a host of various other factors. Still, if the essential argument is that Islam did not ever lead to a time of political stability, I am still very mch in the right. The contributions Of Islam (keeping science, culture, etc alive) was to ultimately contribute all its teachings to the west. Obviously as an Iranian Atheist I resent the impact of Islam,

[thegreatestbak]

@thegreatestbak

but I dont think it is fair to say there was never a time when Islam led to political stability when during the dark ages Islam was instrumental in keeping learning alive when Catholicism was relatively more barbaric. My essential point therefore is that Islam was at one point more stable than Catholicism at a period in time when Religion was what dominated the landscape.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak What was the Italian Renaissance? An adoption of Islamic culture and tradition? Or was it a humanist, artistic, and philosophical movement inspired by Roman and Greek tradition?

Moorish Spain is a great example of political instability. Try and count how many rival caliphates, and sultanates, dynasties and emirates sprung up on the iberian peninsula.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Thanks for spelling it out for me when I have already explicitly stated my understanding that the renassiance was an adoption of roman and greek culture. What you don't seem to realize is my POINT. Moorish Spain was no more politically unstable than any of the wars that raged across Europe around the time of the renaissance--the moors ruled spain for hundreds of years. If you feel the need to scrap the influence of Islamic culture on Europe for the sake of

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

...an ultimately hollow and silly resentment of Islam now that is your business but the facts present themselves, and they point to the fact that the west would not be what it is now if it was not for the influence of Eastern cultures at that time. All monotheisms are shit, and at one time Islam was LESS shitty. Even if I was to admit that the renaissnace did not happen because of Islam (directly), you must concede my point that Islam had at one point more stability

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

If you like, I can point you towards a high volume of resources that would point the INSTRUMENTAL role of the east and Islam in influencing the west and ultimately placing the west where it is today. If you don't know your history I can;t help you with that, nor can I help you if you come to the wrong conclusions.

Obviously I agree with Hitchens that it is a menace today, but at one point Islam was relatively enlightened compared to Catholicism.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak Bernard Lewis, said the Crusades were essentially a mimickry of the Islamic Jihad. It makes sense, remissions of sin in warfare is not a Christian concept, but it's certainly Islamic. If u think I don't give credit to Islamic contributions to science, you're wrong, but I think you're making a misake by romanticizing Islamic history. There was very little that was despicable that the Catholics were doing, that the Muslims weren't also doing, if you can think of something, name it.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

and by 'enlgihtened' I mean to say how religion was APPLIED at the time and political factors that allowed for such. Obviously, Religion is innately evil and leads to barbaric acts.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Observe the achievements of Islamic Civilizations during the Caliphate.

Tell me a time when Catholicism led to political stability. Both religions are innately evil and both have led to rdestruction. By pointing a time when Eastern Civilization was flourisishing, I only mean to point out that both religions are barbaric. This is why CHristopher Hitchens always says Islam is a greater menace "AT THE MOMENT"

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Islam doesn't 'lead to poliical stabliity' but then neither did Catholicism or any western religion. Relatively though, there WAS a period in which Islamic Civilization, if not Islam itself, was indeed more stable....much more so in fact. In fact it is fair to say the Eastern Renaissance was as profound in its way and in the way that it contributed to the western one as the west is now. It is a shame that the east is imperialistically dominated at the moment and disallowed

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

....both by the forced of Islamic Jihad and by Western Imperialism, from developing the kind of infastructure that would allow them to compete with the west. This is a matter of course, though---after all, all of history is a history of struggle for power and resources. Iraq is now giving out oil contracts---Exxonn etc. is now selling barrells for 1.46.

Surpise Surpise. The ugly forces of western imperialism have spared none...not even with over one million iraqis dead.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak The Iraqi oil ministry decides who to give contracts to. They even show the sales live on national TV. Iraq's oil is no longer the personal property of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq wants more investment. Most oil contracts were not given to American companies, and anyone who says America profitted monetarily from the war in Iraq is either ignorant, or a liar.

1 million people didn't die, you exaggerated the real number by around 800%. But, you like to exaggerate.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Yeah...they decide in a country run by the United States---and you're wrong again, virtually all the contracts were given to American Oil Companies.

1 Million Iraqis dead- look it up for yourself my source is reuters. I can't post any links here. It's over 1 million and it is no exaggeration.

[Re5Publica]

@thegreatestbak It's perfectly researchable, and I invite anyone to look.

"Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades." - Vivienne Walt, Time magazine, "U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields"

The latest studies put the Iraq war dead at 90, 000 to 150 000, uncluding studies by the Associated Press, Iraqi Body Count, and the Iraqi Health Ministry for the WHO. You need an update.

[thegreatestbak]

@Re5Publica

Lies and more lies. i invite anyone reading this post to look up the stats for themselves.

[lesnem]

@thegreatestbak the most recent Iraqi oil trade negotiations gave leading deals to Angola and Russia, not the USA.

[soapfiction]

@thegreatestbak We have, thank you very much, and absolutely none of what you have said is true. You can't even list your sources, because they don't exist. If all you can do is type "lies and more lies" over and over again, your attempts to sway are fruitless. The US has not gotten a single drop of oil from Iraq, and the number of Iraqi dead doesn't reach anywhere near that high. The studies which claim so have been thoroughly debunked by basic math alone. These are the facts.

[johnclavis]

@Re5Publica Certainly a number of defense contractors took in billions of dollars during the height of the Iraq invasion. America as a nation did not profit, but that's because what Republicans do when they have political power: they hand as much money as they can upwards from the working class to the top 1% as quickly as they can. That's called "trickle-down economics"!

[Re5Publica]

@johnclavis That's simply cynicism, not proof of a conspiracy. Many people profitted from the war in Iraq, anyone who fulfills a need can stand to profit. Companies profitted from cleaning up the oil fields of Kuwait when Saddam set them on fire, but that's hardly proof that they colluded with Saddam to set them alight.

Also, u misunderstand the philosophy behind cutting taxes. It does not redistribute wealth. The wealth of the productive is made, not taken and given. An important distinction.

[johnclavis]

@Re5Publica Your arguments rest upon the bizarre notions that

1.The companies that profited the most from the Iraq invasion provided value for our dollar, and were subject to oversight when they didn't;

2. That people being paid enormous salaries / bonuses are paid relative to their productivity;

3. That there is still a relationship between the profitability of American megacorporations and the well-being of the USA; and

4. That the very rich are paying even what little taxes they owe.

[Re5Publica]

@johnclavis People are paid what others consider them worth. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they accept the high salaries offered to them, but you don't seem to ask, or even understand, why people offer them such high salaries. Most CEOs make far less than superstar athletes and famous movie stars. It's up to who pays the salary to decide how much they should give. There are negative consequences to giving too much, and too little, which ultimately govern who gets paid what. 

[johnclavis]

@Re5Publica I'm sorry you had to type so many words. You should realize you said nothing and made no argument. I made a serious of assertions, and backed them up with an article showing how our government coddles the megarich, and your response was a series of abstract, empty phrases like "It's up to who pays the salary to decide how much they should give.", when the most lucrative source of "salaries" at this point is the corrupt government paying salaries composed of our tax dollars. Winning!

[Re5Publica]

@johnclavis You didn't provide any article from what I can see in your posts.

1. What measure do you use to determine the value for your dollar when it comes to armaments? The U.S. army is clearly better-armed than its adversaries, that's valuable isn't it?

2. I don't assume that whatsoever, but it shouldn't matter what the private sector pays its executives, they are distributing money given to them freely. The public sector, which uses tax dollars, is different.

[johnclavis]

@Re5Publica Your naivety is adorable. The most profitable "private" industries for decades have been industries where public money becomes a source for private profit. Fat, bloated, no-bid, cost-plus defense contracts for things the Pentagon insists it doesn't need, where the contracts only exist because defense contractors bribe Congressmen into fighting for them, that hand billions to the contractors for work that never gets done or that gets done poorly, is not a point for your side.

[Re5Publica]

@johnclavis You're simply a conspiracy theorist, so there's no point arguing with you. Your whole argument is based on cynicism, and you haven't provided any proof of a conspiracy by defense contractors to start wars solely for monetary gain. It doesn't follow logically that if they profit from war, they are necessarily behind the reason to go to war. You're also making assertions about the quality of defense contract work without explaining how you evaluate it.

[JisakuJ]

@Re5Publica all of recorded history

[tjones590]

@Re5Publica The Umayyad caliphate, though it was expansionist. Islam is a sham, no better or worse than any other sham. Right up there with the Flying Spaghetti monster.

[kansaimagic]

Let's see... Didn't life start in the middle east? So they had thousands of years for a head start? Canada is less than 200 years old and the US is less than 300. Those Muslim bastards in the middle east make it a wasteland. Those christian bastards in europe fuck things up as well. Looks like allah and yahweh did a shit job when creating people and then blame us. religionfactreport(dotcom)

[HumanStrategy]

First questioner was a douchebag. What an idiot. We asked for this? Jesus fucking Christ.

[lord69z]

He doesn't know how to listen.

[waltermh111]

yeah, of course we are innocent. We never do anything wrong, nobody ever has anything to be mad at us about.

You are so right.

We only caused the falling of a democratically elected government of iran and supported a dictatorship in its place.

We only helped britain to create and support the failed state of Iraq

The state of lebanon

Putting Israel right in the middle of muslim territory when the west had plenty of countries willing to take them in because they knew what would happen otherwise

[waltermh111]

We have only supported Israel going way overboard in their original protection in an area they werent welcome from the beginning and should never have settled so largely and now support them in the suppression of the palestinian people.

When you strangle a people, not allowing them to have their own economy, not enough food or medicine nor open borders, what do you expect? and has it made israel safer? They still get rockets, why not learn from the past?

[waltermh111]

We only support many other dictatorships in the middle east, such as palestine.

We supported Hussein against Iran, then attacked Iraq right after.

We suppport Saudi Arabia in ways that upset many other arabs. We continually butt in on their problems or cause problems for many reasons and yet you cant see how that makes them mad? So its only because of their religion?

[waltermh111]

Religions problem isnt so much that it tells people to do bad things, its that it justifies horrible acts to get what a person wants. And thats the issue, we are taking things from them.

We instead need to show them that we want peace, what peace actually looks and feels like, and that they dont need religion to have peace, or a good meal, or a healthy life, cures to illness, etc...

We need to have the answers for the things they are seeking answers from god for right now.

[Freshhhhh1982]

No it also tells people to do extreamly vile things to other human beings.

[Lion117]

Unreadable novels of ayn rand

[Rockroi]

I find it a little funny that Hitchens says he would never come if he thought the gathering would try to elect "a fool like Barak Obama..." A man he has since admitted he voted for happily.

[meiitbe]

Hitchens has conceded, in public and print, that his early opinions of Obama were modified as the campaign progressed and that he became truly impressed with the man's progress and potential as a leader.

What is so terrible with people changing their views and admitting their preconceptions may have been wrong? I think it is a testament to Hitchens's honesty that he would admit that he changed his mind and not like so many other public figures - held to beliefs despite their falsity.

[Rockroi]

I agree. There is nothing "terrible" about Hitchens- or anyone else for that matter -changing their mind or admitting a prior preoccupation was wrong. I thought it funny that he made the original comment with such assured confidence; and that Hitchens is one of the people who calls for others to keep an open mind about certain things- from "Hate Crimes" legislation to laws that cut against the 1st amendment. In other words, he was open-minded enough to know he was being closed-minded.

[nemesisnick66]

that guy who asked the first question was a douche

[adamb696969]

he must have been really intimidated too, just listen to him breathe and you can see how quick and shallow his it is.

[nemesisnick66]

that or he's fat

[adamb696969]

hahahah yeah or that.

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

You've got a conservative atheist in me and I don't care for Ayn Rand.

[earthypig]

agreed. she was a charlatan. simplistic and uninteresting.

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

She certainly wasn't "uninteresting", she had many ideas worth hearing, not least of which is that reason must prevail over emotion and mysticism; but I think objectivism is anti social and almost anti human at times.

[earthypig]

she was an uninteresting writer. her novels were badly written to the point of total tedium for me. personally i find anti-human ideas to be 2 dimensional, lacking in profundity or interest. it's the complexity of humanity as is, and its exploration that is interesting to me.

[earthypig]

i think the most interesting part of her *ideas* were lifted from others like nietzche. just my personal observation.

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

i think the most interesting part of her *ideas* were lifted from others like nietzche [sic]. just my personal observation.

Read her essay Apollo and Dionysus. Her ideas are in contrast with Nietzsche there.

[earthypig]

i was saying that "the most interesting" part of her ideas i found were lifted from Nietzche. not to say that she didn't have other ideas. just that they weren't as interesting to me.

[eydos]

Nietzsche, correctly.

[earthypig]

damn i can't never spell that bastard's name! lol (thanks!)

[eydos]

No problem:) He has a crazy name indeed.

[talicohen]

ARGUMENT FROM INSECURITY

(1) We have gone to absolutely berserk lengths to establish that Atheists are laughable morons.

(1.5) Actually, we did so in the hopes of curing our own insecurities about theism — but there's no chance in hell we'll ever admit that.

(2) Therefore, Atheists are laughable morons.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

[Hirnlego999]

Iran marches into Europe? Sheesh, Iran wouldn't even be able to beat Israel, who probably on it's own could take down Iran because it has a superior military and would

Muslim fanatics are a problem, but the bogus war on terrorism makes it worse. The PNAC conquest, the permanent occupation is exactly what will motive them to kill us. This is probably one question where I have to disagree with Hitchens more than anything else. Didn't Operation Ajax teach him anything? US still suffers from it.

[gr0mithtimon]

he said: marching past the European union - as in ignoring what the EU tells them to do.

its plain English..

[Hirnlego999]

What should Iran do? Stop enriching uranium?

They have the right to do that and the whole process is far more open than most in the west would allow into their own country. Israel hasn't even admitted that they have nuclear bombs and have not signed the NPT.

In Iran there's even a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

[newazagod]

No, the do NOT have the "right to do that". When your leader states quite plainly that his goal, and the goal of his country, is to destroy another country, Israel and its allies, then no, you don't get to enrich uranium. That's Hitches point

[Hirnlego999]

What when "your" leader? Fuck theocratic regimes. The Iranian president doesn't even have a lot of power, which of course Hitchens doesn't want to point out since he is part of selling another imperial war. It's amazing that he has sided with Machivellian/Straussian deceivers.

[anything4ai]

No, politics is where he is the most courageous and compelling. His views follow from and are logically consistent with a stance built on secularism, reason, human rights, etc. If you can't appreciate his politics then you can't really appreciate Hitchens imo.

[murderbydeath79]

Rudy chris? really? i love the mans views on religon but his politics are ass backwards

[Ellesime89]

I love how Hitchens acts when he's being asked these sort of Iraq War questions... He's always looking around, not really acknowledging the questioner. It's pretty funny.

[firesteel1]

great stuff about iran

[firesteel1]

hitchens is great

[godfree2canada]

love it when he silences the crowd, with get rid of it Iran

I would have have applauded

[adoracle1]

10+ yrs of sanctions,bombing,defiling holy ground & puppet govs to serve US interests has focused them on us. Estimates of nukes by 2009/10 r based on the assumption that Iran'd have optimum conditions, sufficient raw inventory +everything running perfectly 24/7/365 for a couple of years straight. Ridiculous fear mongering.Israel has over 300 nukes;Iran's impotent in their shadow. worry about your own gov getting too big for its britches here.

[Hirnlego999]

Those estimates don't matter squat since even the US NIE came to the conclusion that there is no weapons program.

Fact is these people are selling another war, and they are using almost the same rhetoric as they did with Iraq which some of us pretty much knew they would end up empty handed. Some of us remember what was said before the war drumming began. Hitchens is an atheist neocon. He certainly makes strange bedfellows

[St37One]

"I knew if you ever clapped it would be at the wrong time" -LOL I love how he relates to his audience.

"We do not create jihad by resisting it." that is exactly what the opposing side says time and again

[Hirnlego999]

Pentagon, CIA people, 9/11 commission and Wolfowitz all disagree. Military occupations do create blowbacks. But sometimes you even need that, first create chaos, then point fingers and say "we oughta deal with that", which of course makes the bloodshed even worse.

Americans would go ape-shit too if a country like Canada did what USA is doing in the middle-east

These are very Orwellian times, too bad it goes under the radar of most people

[lollygager3664]

I agree that Iran cannot have nuclear arms AT ANY COST!

[weslincs]

I think Hitchens objects to Rand's prose, not necessarily libertarian ideas per se. However,

he's asked "What is the libertarian position on the war?"

Perhaps, that's why his remarks on Iraq did not go over well. It probably consisted of craven, servile, milquetoast liberals who likely, as Frost pointed out, would not take even their own side during a fight!

[historywillabsolve]

hitch used to be a socialist. he doesn't call himself that anymore, so it's probably more than just her prose that he finds repelling.

[weslincs]

Yes, I'd emphasize the words "used to be" .

Libertarianism can embrace "left wing" or

"right wing".

[weslincs]

It appears Mr. Hitchens dislikes Rand's prose,

not here libertarian views.

Of course, many of his "views" did not got over well with much of the audience. They probably consisted of milquetoast liberal intellectuals who are too craven, servile,

to stand up on on anything but their hindlegs.

(Remember Frost: "A liberal is one who would not take his own side a fight.")

[DonJulioBlanco2002]

Hitch's political comments didn't go over too well it appears.

[drmayne]

What does Hitch have against Ayn Rand. I'm a huge fan of Hitch's, but I can't figure out the Rand thing.

[DammitSteve]

i know he hates her novels on just literary principles. But yeah, i would be interested to hear precisely what it is about objectivism he hates. A lot of it may have to do with his internationalist stance. I think he sees it as a cult of extreme liberterianism.

[NIckSouthAfrica]

Wow!

[baresolid]

Mr Hitchens is definitely right on the issue of war, as well as the issue of religion, and that they are interlinked.

I think it's a shame that his supporters on the atheist side are the same fluffy liberals who would still have Saddam in power.

[templarart]

I see the same thing - it seems that in order to NOT believe in Jehovah you also have to be a pacifist, a socialist and hate President Bush to such a psychotic degree that it would make the most petulant racist look sane and rational in comparison.

[johnclavis]

templarart - If it "seems" that way, maybe it's because you're fed a neverending stream of invective to that effect by a focused right-wing noise machine?

baresolid - those big-dicked conservatives you love so much let Pakistan get the bomb and sell it to every Axis of Evil country and then some. Reagan illegally sold arms to Iran to finance terrorism in S. Amer. Clinton caught the 1993 WTC bombers and brought them to justice. Homo says what?

[templarart]

No, it "seems" that way because that's what I see when any atheist: King Heathen, RabidApe, Amazing Atheist etc - makes a political video. It's always pacifist, "resisting terrorism causes terrorism" nonsense.

[baresolid]

I never said anywhere that I love right-wingers or conservatives. I do, however, HATE terrorists and opposers of democracy. I will not exclude the general illegally ruling Pakistan from that either.

Conservatives often have retrograde values that I would very much distance myself from. Being from England I am spared having to side with conservatives to support a just war against jihadism and extremism.