Goddamnit he didn't answer the second to last question... The man wanted to know an honest answer to an academic question and Hitch decided he didn't like the tone of the guy's question so went off on some tangent.
WHY IRAQ AND NOT IRAN? he could've saved 10 minutes and just said "doesn't matter which"... I'm assuming that would've been his answer because he never explicitly answered the question.
Hitch has a tendency at times to answer the underlying sentiment to the purported point of the question. Granted, he may not answer the question asked, but he answers (most of the time, anyways) a much more illuminating and more pertinent question than the one asked.
oh my god, these questioners who needs to tell us their life story when they are going to ask a question. Stop having such a big ego and just ask the fucking question. No one cares you little bald fool.
to be fair, they probably paid to be at the event, which entitles them to ask whatever question they choose. We're watching this for free on youtube. plus its always nice to hear how someone came to disbelieve the nonsense.
@johneamer you speak as if they are no longer his views, can you link me to somewhere where he says he's changed his mind? (perhaps he has, although i don't think this is the case.) also, are these views a 'weak spot' because you personally disagree with him or do you see some fundamental error in his reasoning? if so, what are the error/s? i personally find it hard to condone war....but goddamn, hitch has a point.
Ironically, the people who know the least speak out the most. To simplify anybody into a holistic "DEAD WRONG" knows absolutely nothing about how to discern factions of truth and sensibility in arguments one finds oneself dissenting. To say that about Hitchens though tells us a lot more about you than about him.
I dissent from Christopher on a number of issues, but it does not seem as though you have the guts to be intellectually honest like him.
@MrJs1G How so? What a vague statement. I like Hitchens too, but I refuse to blindly defend his every position. The man is wrong on Iraq, and if you have an argument to defend it, then present said argument. If not, then I don't see why you are defending him.
Defending a vague statement with an even vaguer one. Great debating skills you have.
You've overlooked one of the most important points I made in my contentions. Fair enough.
I stated that there are factions of truth and sensibility in an issue or principle one finds disagreeable. I initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but with the incompetence with the administration I eventually fell away from the pro-side.
to have come out of the US expenditure in Iraq -- the removal of Saddam Hussein from a chokepoint on the world economy, the removal of his sons, an established democracy, freer press, to name a few.
Again, "DEAD WRONG" isn't the phrase I would use here, like you impetuously do.
@MrJs1G I will obviously concede that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his sons was progress, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Saddam could've easily been removed without going to war. Ostensibly, even the most diehard conservatives don't dare defend the fiasco in Iraq anymore.
"I will obviously concede that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his sons was progress"
- Then you've proved your own initial statement false.
Oh please. What -- with the sanctions? Oh no -- it was most definitely the Oil for Food Programme, right? Please. They rely on the assumption that Hussein was a rational calculator -- which he obviously wasn't from the mass genocide of the Kurds to the burning of the oil fields of Kuwait when he was retreating.
@ahmedeox A moderate Muslim obeys the laws of Islam? These laws dictate that non-believers ("infidels") have to be converted or killed. As long as you follow the laws of Islam there's no such thing as moderate. It's all radical.
Let's make one thing clear: there is islam-the religion and there is islam-the political doctrine. What radical muslims are doing is promoting the agenda of the second under the guise of the first, of religion. It is the same as promoting any political ideology, be it nazism, communism, etc., as a divine mandate. THIS MUST BE STOPPED. A moderate muslim obeys the laws of islam, the religion. A radical mixes the two. Thumbs up if you agree.
@xn117 separate laws for whom? radical or moderate muslims? I think moderates should be in power in middle eastern countries, or, even better, secularists.
@xn117 Fuck no. Muslims go on and on about wanting to live like the prophet. Well, then go to the fuckin desert and sell camels like the prophet, don't come to Europe or America, since the prophet didn't live here. The Shariah guys should obey the laws of the land or be gone. Period.
@Orca40 He dislikes ALL religions. But Islam is the most radical currently. But anyway - that is a discussion for a different time. Few people dislike Hitchens because he supports the Iraq war.. It is not something people should worry about though.
@Tethloach1 People like that have never read the koran. I reccomend your teachers go to the skeptics annotated koran. It's a wonderful online website. It has the bible, koran, and book of mormon. Want to find intolerant murderous crap? It's indexed there. Want to find something laughable? That's also indexed. Just google it.
easy prediction >>> there will be a movie made based on CH's life - in some way - very soon. he's far too charismatic and compelling a figure for hollywood NOT to undertake it.
Astounding how far Hitch was ahead of the game considering this vid was put up two years ago. Well America, Islam is coming your way in short insidious steps, mosque by cultural centre 'harmless' new demand by 'harmless' new demand. Never forget what Mohammed was about. Empire.
Islam seeks to convert the world or make slaves of those who will not submit. Read the Quran it's a violent handbook for religious /political supremacy. If Muslims deny this they are not believers in the Quran.
Saying that the US caused destruction and death in Iraq is just plain pathetic. They are not seeing the matter from the right perspective and (the worst part) they refuse to see it - as Hitchens brilliantly explained what happened or is happening or will be happening in that region.
So, before criticizing the war, i suggest to these people to visit Iraq, or at least read some books on the matter!
@luarionte No its an accurate statement. Even members of the US military acknowledge that disbanding the Iraqi army and levelling their infrastructure was a gross and costly mistake. You should grow up a bit before calling people children.
Yes, but unfortunately that not the only thing to consider in that war - again you confirmed my point about the simplistic and naive approach on wars that generally people have
@luarionte I have confirmed nothing, I merely take offence to your claim that acknowledging the mistakes made and pain caused is "plain pathetic". If anyone is simplifying the invasion it's you and your 'ends justify the means' attitude.
Since you're interested in the bigger picture I assume you have thought about the consequences of setting a modern day precedent for pre-emptive war?
As for the "pre-emptive war" comment, the answer is simple: its either them or we! Are we letting the irrational and religious psychopaths prepare for the destruction of the world?
And if you are capitulating to their demands just because soldiers died be my guest! But i wont and i'm gonna help (or support) fighting these people till the end! (in wars death is NORMAL - wars kill people)
@luarionte "Are we letting the irrational and religious psychopaths prepare for the destruction of the world?" - Yep, you might know them as the 'American Taliban'
And they will interpret the views of people like you (who don't agree with the war) ans cowardice of the West and basically it will make them even more confident of making an attack first - and be sure that they DO have the means and audacity to go through with it!
And don't even think of trying to compare the the motivations of both sides: we have reason on our side - they have irrationality and ignorance and racism!
@luarionte Nice attempt at a strawman. Your 'cowardice' rhetoric reminds me of the rhetoric we used to hear during the Cold War, you know the one where nuclear holocaust didn't happen? Thats the point - they (Islamofascists) *don't* have the means (or the numbers), you're stressing yourself over a boogie man.
The *only* people talking about 'Armageddon' are the Evangelicals and Zionists (ie: the ones that *want* and pray for the end of the world), please tell me you're not one of them?
They are just like children - they think the question can be simply put as: "wars are bad because they kill people"). They are naive and childish!
The US is doing them a favor (and also the rest of the world for that matter)!
Thinking that they would be better without the US intervention revels that you don't have any idea of whats going on in Iraq and Mesopotamia in general (unlike Hitchens).
@luarionte LOL - Do you have any arguments that aren't merely conjecture or sweeping generalisations? And you have the gall to imply I'm the conspiracy theorist?
Whole Islam? - You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, 'Islam' doesn't operate as a whole. Do you even know what a standing army is? Do you know what a terrorist cell is? Do you understand the difference between the two?
'Islam' wants to homogenise the world or destroy it? You're arguments are pretty unconvincing...
And their army is very well prepared, and capable of doing efficiently what they are expected to do (example - 9/11)!
The terrorist ARE the Army - they obey ISLAM - they are only terrorist at our perspective: they are not terrorist in Islam because they just do what their God expects!
They might be primitive in their rationality, but their weapons are anything but primitive - and that's the whole problem!
Read, at least, Sam Harris' book to get a better picture
"Terrorist cell" and "standing army" that you mentioned are concepts that are only applied to civilized societies! The are different in CIVILIZED countries!
But there they are ALL the SAME in Islam!!
The actions are terrorist only to our perspective - to them, they are doing the army's job: an official and divine duty, according to the precepts of the Koran!
Ha! What other public intellectual would have the audacity to say "I'm sorry to say your question didn't give me enough of an erection", yet still manage to charm his interlocuter?
Christopher is a lovely man... even when expressing disapproval and disdain. He is quite the gentleman as well as a well spoken, thoughtful, and charismatic human.
simply a philosophical genius -- though Christopher Hitchens does express nature as if it were reality right in front of our eyes he does not expound upon this. How could that very point not lead human superstition and/or intellect into believing all of the unknown aspects of nature as then being Divine?
All joking aside, it seems to me that the best way to discourage extreme faith and willingness to sacrifice one's life or to kill others, to discourage all these things, the best way is to create a vibrant and educated middle class that will question totalitarianism and theocracy is development aid, not bombs. Bombs and gunfire will just put people's backs up and make them dig into their religion - and it's way more expensive than we can do for the entire third world.
@darkmiles22 You may have a point there. This would entail loans at sweetheart rates and/or grants to individual businesses, though, not governments
Commercial 'inflitration' certainly works. The youth of Iran form a growing mass of dissatisfaction with the theocratic regime. They want cool clothes and pop music and freedom to enjoy what we've got. Even little girls there want Barbie dolls (businesses there import them from the West) not the local competitor "Sarah" dolls complete with burqa.
it is not a mantal illness it is the lack of the parent to make childs being love and the lack of parents to reassure their yongster about life and give them comfident into themself and i kow it from a fact i alaways taught my kids to be free thinker altought it give someproblem once a while i prefer that to be a sheep wihtout knowing the whys
they never belive in the toothfary or sancta clause cause i always tell them the truth today they growned up and tank me for it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The more you listen to him the more you realize he is a condescending self-indulgent Neoconservative.
We don't get bombed because we are free. We get bombed because of our occupation. Why don't these radicals bomb Canada? Because Canada doesn't assassinate leaders and usurp governments.
@youpick4me Um...And they don't bomb us because we're not only more likely to give in to their political assault for "rights" as they call them. AND we don't pose a militaristic threat. AND Canada has a smaller part on the world stage. AND Canada isn't nearly as what I see as messed up, or I suppose "diverse" as America is, in a way that would make it a choice target to attack for the case for 'freedom'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens is saying that Jesus & Saul of Tarsus were completely crazy.
If so they were the most influential people in the world while crazy.
Interesting indeed.
Especially when one considers that Daniel 9:25 puts the Messiah coming at 4 B.C. per Darius II (instead of Cyrus I) as he allowed the treasures with his command to build the temple and Daniel 9:25 puts Messiah at 34 A.D.
Explaining Zechariah 12:10 written in 520 B.C. becomes even harder to figure out.
Influential crazy people are not in short supply. 'Craziness' can give individuals a single-minded fanaticism which makes them powerful friends or enemies.
The old testament was perhaps used by the new testament writers as a 'reference' for compiling their stories to justify Jesus as messiah - where he was born, stabbed in the side when crucified, whatever. The myth took precedent over facts, one suspects.
Hitchens wants Christianity to step down... he is not downplaying the worth of individual christians as people.
Soldiers in the U.S. army just happen to be mostly christian because christianity is extremely predominent in America. That doesn't mean you have to be a christian to be a loyal patriot.
I see. I understand how it doesn't apear to be consistent, but I don't think that means Hitchens is divided against himself. He doesn't see the American offensive as religiously motivated, although he may be wrong, and it may very well be a sort of evangelical crusade, he himself doesn't believe it to be so, so I don't think you can say that he is inconsistent with himself... he may be wrong, but he has a clear view of the subject, at least that's what I think.
I think Hitchens is a clear thinker. I said what a strange dichotomy that he demands that religion ends as he feels that they will bring on dooms day by fighting each other and thus wants to end religion.
At the same time he wants the American soldier to defend him from the Middle East (a christian army against a Muslim population).
No, it is not a dichotomy. Hitchens clearly sees the war as being against the power and influence of Islamic 'fascists' 'fanatics' and their supporters (he believes Saddam Hussein was one). This is different to a war between two religions - Christianity and Islam. You can agree or disagree with his view, but he makes a consistent and powerful argument.
I think you are still feeling symptoms of western guilt.
All the worlds ills are not our fault - but when people start flying OUR technology into OUR buildings for no other reason than paranoid ideology then it IS our REPONSIBILITY to future generation to STOP this shit in other countries.
I detest your premise.
You wish to leave the world in the hand of religious maniacs and despots?
@lord69z Well said. As a person who's economically on the left, I detest this anti-western, moral relativist, bullshit, white guilty, masochism which has infected the western left. You know what else? I do not appologize for the past. I am not sorry. Why? I didn't do it. I had no hand in it. If it's my fault, then you might as well black the children and grand children of a murderer for the crime. Hell if we can't catch the murderer, let's excecute his kids. Ridiculous!
@Newenlightenmentnow Indeed. If you perpetuate the old evil ideology or live by it then you should be stopped -- but civilly. If you don't, or in the absence of knowledge that you do, you should not be presumed to inherit the legacy of guilt. We are first and foremost individuals -- something that niggas on the streets have no problem asserting on a daily basis, but when confronted with various issues they retreat under the cover of "our forefathers suffered under racism".
Every one of the statements in your comment is factually incorrect, and shows an egregious ignorance of the nature of the conflict, as well as a great deal of masochistic determination to accept blame.
You go apologize and surrender to the Islamic fascists if you want to; don't claim the rest of the US should follow your disgraceful example.
Like Christopher Hitchens, I will proudly fight them to the end.
send your wife or daughter down the streets of Pakistan in a miniskirt and see how long it takes before she gets gang raped. (if you didnt know gang rape is legislated by the state in Pakistan to "reinforce cultural values" and that 75% of Pakistani prisoners are in jail for the CRIME of being rapped).
maybe that will convince you of the reality of Islamofascism.
Besides, you cant fight religion/ideology with war.
Also, he ignores where Hussein got his power from. (Us)
Besides, he talks here, in 07, about how bad hezbollah is, yet what does he think now about them seeing he was wrong and that they are peaceful, having done exactly what their creation set out to do despite being funded by Iran.
He gets too emotional with these things and only sees what he wants to see.
I really am angered when I listen to Hitchens about middle east affairs.
hes definitely blinded by his hate of religion.
One example is his belief that Iran wont work with us, but he ignores that we wont talk with them.
Even the UN cant get anything done because we keep saying its our way or the highway. If the Un ever starts to talk to the Iranians we step in and say that nobody can talk to Iran unless these unwavering demands are met.
I think CH's contempt for Islam clouds his judgement on the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Our being there has caused the death of a million innocent people, not my idea of altruism or defence. Where do you draw the line on "pre-emptive" action? Is "thought crime" prosecution next?
He doesn't hate Arab people. Well he does, but he used to be anti-war, pro-palestinians and against the Gulf War. You should watch some of his Iraq debates.
Public speaking does tend to parch your throat, you try doing it as often as he does and see how long you can go without sipping on something. And what does being thirsty have to do with any effects gained from being high on cocaine?
You made a very inadequate attempt at being funny and I think you should hit yourself.
it a virtue. Meaning, you declare that it is an axiomatic principle by which all people (or your self, most importantly) must adhere to, and in order to disprove you declaration your 'interlocutors' must use that principle (while blindly asserting it). Altruism is the assertion that attempts to make charity a moral practice- it says that the only manner a man may become a moral creature is giving away what he has. The more he gives (works toward his death), the better person he is: sacrifice.
moral in a religious or mystical context than it is in a social context i.e., communism and socialism. An obligation to be charitable is a negation of the definition of the term 'charity;' it only functions on the basis of personal volitional choice. If one is obligated to do so, one becomes a slave to his obligator; if one chooses to be charitable then he must accept that his actions aren't noble. All he did was give away what he earned, to someone who didn't. Do not confuse this with kindness.
My -6 rating for one of comments here is a perfect example of being rational in one field of thinking doesn't guarantee rationality in all other fields of thought. If those of you who disagree with me would give me an argument in an attempt to disprove the fact that charity is amoral then you will hold a better position already. I repeat, no one is obligated to be charitable. The altruism that religion prescribes is just one of the reasons for its immorality. The idea of sacrifice is no more...
as would you have hoped he'd do if a theocratic nation ever gets hold of a nuclear weapon and launches it gleefully as it screams out "allah hu akbar".
i hope you dont think that just smiling, being nice, shaking hands, patting each other backs saying "it'll be ok", making sure we dont offend anyone will bring about a better world when at the other end of the room you have someone you honestly and truly believes you to be a JUST homicide victim of his own hand.
then why not invade iran rather than iraq? i don't understand the logic there.
the people that were being murdered and tortured in iraq are definitely better off without saddam but i don't think that necessarily means that everyone else is or that somehow the world is a better place.
this war has made us less, not more safe. it seems to me that instead of weakening islamic extremism, this war has prepared a generation of young men willing to die for the cause.
What's wrong with expecting a pint of blood for your rare blood group?
The fact that you bank on the generosity of other people, and you are making generosity, i.e. charity, a virtue. You expect people to act 'good.' And if you may discover that you will not find the blood you need, you will curse those people and call them non-virtuous? You will have no such right. Another person with your rare blood group is never obligated, morally, to donate blood- you will cry out 'yes' here.
If Islamic extremists really wanted to kill us we would have already had another terrorist attack, our borders are wide open. Also, if we were in danger of terrorism wouldn't our government immediately close the borders?
Just take a look at what happened to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter when he told the truth about Iraq and Iran. His book Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change, is an excellent read.
Interesting, I will have to take a look. Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy by Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Aschcar is also very good and it sounds like the views are similar.
I have read Hitchens god is not Great and I read between the lines, he is in favor of socialist globalization through the United Nations. Lets not forget that we went to war under a UN resolution. Also, we can no longer afford to go to war neither in life or monetarily it is killing the middle class. We currently have bases in 130 countries our country can no longer sustain this, it is economic disaster for US citizens. Our empire is coming down and people still look for dragons to slay.
Hitchens can be quoted from many different public occasions, most of which can be found on YouTube, that he is not a socialist. He says clearly that he used to be a socialist, and is not anymore.
Hitchens is wrong about the War, we will continue to have blowback consequences if we keep intervening in the middle east for Israels interests. Iran hates us because the CIA overthrew democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953.
Man, at every Q&A Hitchens does probably at least 50% of the poeple who come up to the microphone do so only to hear their own voice or be the centre of attention. They ask things which he's covered a thousand times over or just make a comment. It really cuts into the productivity of these things.
And also, I hate how people at these things feel the need to start clapping every single time he says something they agree with! Save it for the end.
whats weird is that i saw this video a long time ago and didnt agree with hitchens, but now watching it again i find my self smiling and almost agreeing with him?...
Seen him before doing "the circuit" and probably on Charlie Rose, but it's been awhile.
I've had quite a bit of respect for Mr. Hitchens prior to viewing this video, but now come away from it with a profound respect: He is vastly intelligent and unwaveringly principled. I learned a TON from watching this. Thank you, Mr. Hitchens.
I am a big fan of his as well and have also learned a lot from watching his videos. You should check out, "Hitchens vs. Hitchens" on YouTube. It is a debate with his brother on religion and the war in Iraq. They are both very smart and it gives the most in depth account of his opinions of anything I have found regarding the Iraq war.
i like hitchens-he's funny, witty,sharp. he's good because he's not a scientist like Dawkins he's a journalist so he points out the quirks and discrepencies in religion instead of scientific flaws.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow. I'm a big fan of Dawkins and Harris, but this guy is something else. Arrogant beyond belief, and quite frankly i completely disagree with his political views. What a bizarre outlook on the issues in Iraq. It goes to show it's not just religion that you can twist to justify anything you'd like to justify.
why not say that saddam was an evil and manipulative man, who used whatever means at his disposal to achieve his purpose, and the jihad was pretty much handed to him and that he deserved what heappened to him, why burden religion with his evil deeds?
yes christopher, but regarding saddam, couldn't one bring up, your own argument actually, about stalin. i mean, saddam shouldn't have been in the dictatorship business if he couldn't take advantage of the koran and the jihad which is advertised in that book. aren't being a hypocrite and applying a double standard?sorry chris, you wen't too far in your accusations and you got caught, if only you would have kept your mouth shut
The difference being that Stalin created his own personality cult rather than using the Bible; Saddam just used existing religion, the Koran. Not the same thing!
Really, it isn't? Both derive their power arbitrarily, both deny liberty arbitrarily, both assume sanction- one by the so called force of society, and the other by the so called force of 'god.' Both variations of idiocy, totalitarianism and religious totalitarianism, are two forms of the same mysticism. One are the mystics of muscle, who force you to comply to their whim with a gun to your head and call a traitor to society, in the other case you would a traitor to god, they cry ur soul or life
Sounds like an objectivist speaking. OK, you're right, but the proclamation of power based upon control of industry by the proletariat and the will of god are still different, though no less disastrous.
Yes, this is an objectivist speaking- very perceptive. They obviously are different processes but, both reach the same end. Both paths lead to that same end of the destruction of self-determination, and forfeiting ownership of your own life; both are equally immoral.
I recognize Rands language there. Im tending towards Objectivism myself after reading Rand and listening to her views for the first time over the last few months but her labeling of any form of helping other people as altruistic is a bit troubling. Like Christopher Hitchens said its possible to help others without licking their shoes (giving blood is his number one example).
"Both paths lead to that same end of the destruction of self-determination..." that's what I said.
Yeah, which to me doesn't make them all that different.
Be sure to make the distinction between kindness and altruism. This point is subtle, but important in her work. There's nothing wrong with being kind, polite, in fact kindness is the form obligation to other human beings that you are under. That obligation is your reason; you owe human beings the same respect you do for all things (inanimate too): the same respect for truth. There's nothing wrong with giving, as long as you do NOT make...
You're not obligated to be kind to other people by anything other than your own self-interest. How obligated are you to be kind to terrorists who wish your immediate censorship and destruction? How obligated are they to respect YOUR demand that they leave you alone? Game theory doesn't deal with "Obligations" in the deontologist reckoning of the term, it deals with Rewards and Punishments (teleological and consequentialist territory).
Nature will not force you to be kind i.e., deal with others with rationality and not with unreason. Morally you are obligated, naturally you are not under any obligation to follow any moral principle. You do so for the sake of your own self i.e., your own self interest. If you deal with others irrationally, they will respond to you in the same fashion- you both lose. Being kind to people who initiate the use of force against you in another issue. You are, in the same manner, morally obligated...
to retaliate only for the sake of your own survival. Dealing with people who wish to trade with you and do not intend to be hostile with you, are people with whom you (if you wish to better your life) should be kind with. You may preemptively be hostile out of certainty that say, terrorists, are planning to cause harm to you. If they too wish to live in a society based on reason and individual rights (which they abandon in the first place) they are moral obligation deal with you rationally.
I don't like that guy. I much prefer Dawkins who talks about figthing religious beliefs because they're false only. But this guy talking about US going to war, YET AGAIN, does he really thinks it's gonna help wipe out islam in anyway? What about christianity? Also he can go and die himself in the warzone, it's too easy to send the army and have young people die for something they don't understand. Finally I think he has the unsane devotion to jews that is so politically correct in US, too bad..
I am not a gun hugging redneck when I say that it is essential that we hold our position in Iraq, and not give in to the liberal position of 'live and let live'
miss ya hitch!
orbital92hotmail 6 days ago
Goddamnit he didn't answer the second to last question... The man wanted to know an honest answer to an academic question and Hitch decided he didn't like the tone of the guy's question so went off on some tangent.
WHY IRAQ AND NOT IRAN? he could've saved 10 minutes and just said "doesn't matter which"... I'm assuming that would've been his answer because he never explicitly answered the question.
He really can be an insufferable cunt sometimes.
MetroAdventures 3 months ago
@MetroAdventures
Hitch has a tendency at times to answer the underlying sentiment to the purported point of the question. Granted, he may not answer the question asked, but he answers (most of the time, anyways) a much more illuminating and more pertinent question than the one asked.
l3lip 2 months ago
C.H.= Fed. Provocateur.
wwaalltthheerr 4 months ago
Thank you for posting this, RationalResponse.
writersblock26 5 months ago
oh my god, these questioners who needs to tell us their life story when they are going to ask a question. Stop having such a big ego and just ask the fucking question. No one cares you little bald fool.
Hermoor 8 months ago
@Hermoor
to be fair, they probably paid to be at the event, which entitles them to ask whatever question they choose. We're watching this for free on youtube. plus its always nice to hear how someone came to disbelieve the nonsense.
TheIkaraCult 8 months ago
Well done Josh.
johneamer 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bithchens, fucking hilarious as always. Always get a a kick out of listening to him. R.I.P. Hitchens.
effee1000 8 months ago
@effee1000 He's not dead. -_-
deadmoon29 8 months ago
@effee1000 bloody hell mate - do your research before posting such a statement. He isn't dead!
SidandCoke 6 months ago
notice how he coffs every now and then... the cancer was already growing perhaps :(
jackasslobo 9 months ago
hmmm...so all religious leaders are sick.....hmmmm
Mrhawklanz 9 months ago 2
I adore Hitchens but his earlier views on the Iraq invasion is weak spot,
johneamer 9 months ago
@johneamer you speak as if they are no longer his views, can you link me to somewhere where he says he's changed his mind? (perhaps he has, although i don't think this is the case.) also, are these views a 'weak spot' because you personally disagree with him or do you see some fundamental error in his reasoning? if so, what are the error/s? i personally find it hard to condone war....but goddamn, hitch has a point.
ilytopy 8 months ago
I adore Hitchens but his earlier views on the Iraq invasion is a real weak spot,
johneamer 9 months ago
i just love his intelectual humour. get better CH
pustolov9 10 months ago
I'll buy him a drink anytime!
Zjevakin 10 months ago
I'm not going to lie, Hitchens is DEAD WRONG on Iraq. Everything else is right, though.
michaelchristopherj 10 months ago
@michaelchristopherj
Ironically, the people who know the least speak out the most. To simplify anybody into a holistic "DEAD WRONG" knows absolutely nothing about how to discern factions of truth and sensibility in arguments one finds oneself dissenting. To say that about Hitchens though tells us a lot more about you than about him.
I dissent from Christopher on a number of issues, but it does not seem as though you have the guts to be intellectually honest like him.
MrJs1G 9 months ago
@MrJs1G How so? What a vague statement. I like Hitchens too, but I refuse to blindly defend his every position. The man is wrong on Iraq, and if you have an argument to defend it, then present said argument. If not, then I don't see why you are defending him.
michaelchristopherj 9 months ago
@michaelchristopherj
Defending a vague statement with an even vaguer one. Great debating skills you have.
You've overlooked one of the most important points I made in my contentions. Fair enough.
I stated that there are factions of truth and sensibility in an issue or principle one finds disagreeable. I initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but with the incompetence with the administration I eventually fell away from the pro-side.
There are a large number of beneficial things
MrJs1G 9 months ago
@michaelchristopherj
to have come out of the US expenditure in Iraq -- the removal of Saddam Hussein from a chokepoint on the world economy, the removal of his sons, an established democracy, freer press, to name a few.
Again, "DEAD WRONG" isn't the phrase I would use here, like you impetuously do.
MrJs1G 9 months ago
@MrJs1G I will obviously concede that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his sons was progress, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Saddam could've easily been removed without going to war. Ostensibly, even the most diehard conservatives don't dare defend the fiasco in Iraq anymore.
michaelchristopherj 9 months ago
@michaelchristopherj
"I will obviously concede that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his sons was progress"
- Then you've proved your own initial statement false.
Oh please. What -- with the sanctions? Oh no -- it was most definitely the Oil for Food Programme, right? Please. They rely on the assumption that Hussein was a rational calculator -- which he obviously wasn't from the mass genocide of the Kurds to the burning of the oil fields of Kuwait when he was retreating.
MrJs1G 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelchristopherj
"even the most diehard conservatives don't dare defend the fiasco in Iraq anymore."
- There you go again. Assumptions and generalizations. You've proven yourself wrong once already, why make it twice?
MrJs1G 9 months ago
@ahmedeox A moderate Muslim obeys the laws of Islam? These laws dictate that non-believers ("infidels") have to be converted or killed. As long as you follow the laws of Islam there's no such thing as moderate. It's all radical.
TheUrgleBurgle 1 year ago
Let's make one thing clear: there is islam-the religion and there is islam-the political doctrine. What radical muslims are doing is promoting the agenda of the second under the guise of the first, of religion. It is the same as promoting any political ideology, be it nazism, communism, etc., as a divine mandate. THIS MUST BE STOPPED. A moderate muslim obeys the laws of islam, the religion. A radical mixes the two. Thumbs up if you agree.
ahmedeox 1 year ago
@ahmedeox what about the laws of the country they live in? Should they have separate laws for them because they believe differently?
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 separate laws for whom? radical or moderate muslims? I think moderates should be in power in middle eastern countries, or, even better, secularists.
ahmedeox 1 year ago
@ahmedeox I'm talking about those who want Shirah Law in Great Britain and other places in the west.
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 Fuck no. Muslims go on and on about wanting to live like the prophet. Well, then go to the fuckin desert and sell camels like the prophet, don't come to Europe or America, since the prophet didn't live here. The Shariah guys should obey the laws of the land or be gone. Period.
ahmedeox 1 year ago
@Orca40 He dislikes ALL religions. But Islam is the most radical currently. But anyway - that is a discussion for a different time. Few people dislike Hitchens because he supports the Iraq war.. It is not something people should worry about though.
xn117 1 year ago
@Orca40 He has condemned them... Google it.
xn117 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty with people near you benaughtyman.info
mandakiniization 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CorporalNym hence my new line of heathen ware.
t shirts to erk even the most peacefull(sic) of religious assholes.
the "fuck....." series will be first.
Fuck islam, Fuck christianity, fuck judaism, dont fuck mormons...they fuck enough themselves, fuck krisna,.etc.... cheers& REASONED greating
zencat999 1 year ago
Teahers in fucking highscool always kept saying Islam is a religion of peace.
Tethloach1 1 year ago
@Tethloach1 People like that have never read the koran. I reccomend your teachers go to the skeptics annotated koran. It's a wonderful online website. It has the bible, koran, and book of mormon. Want to find intolerant murderous crap? It's indexed there. Want to find something laughable? That's also indexed. Just google it.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
easy prediction >>> there will be a movie made based on CH's life - in some way - very soon. he's far too charismatic and compelling a figure for hollywood NOT to undertake it.
noodoo19 1 year ago
@noodoo19 I really hope they don´t and that Hitchens prohibits the Hollywood fuckers of making a shitty movie yet again..
dleiros 1 year ago
I think Hitch was foreshadowing his own 'epic' battle. It has fuck all to do with religion. And it has everything to do with religion.
Moochie007 1 year ago
Astounding how far Hitch was ahead of the game considering this vid was put up two years ago. Well America, Islam is coming your way in short insidious steps, mosque by cultural centre 'harmless' new demand by 'harmless' new demand. Never forget what Mohammed was about. Empire.
Islam seeks to convert the world or make slaves of those who will not submit. Read the Quran it's a violent handbook for religious /political supremacy. If Muslims deny this they are not believers in the Quran.
CorporalNym 1 year ago 39
Comment removed
zencat999 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CorporalNym hence my new line of heathen ware.
t shirts to erk even the most peacefull(sic) of religious assholes.
the "fuck....." series will be first.
Fuck islam, Fuck christianity, fuck judaism, dont fuck mormons...they fuck enough themselves, fuck krisna,.etc.... cheers& REASONED greating
zencat999 1 year ago
@CorporalNym Hitch was on this before I was even born. Before 9/11, and before Iraq.
Territomauvais 4 weeks ago
10:45
FTW!!!!
mutedmakequiet 1 year ago 3
What is he referring to 25:03?
drydust999 1 year ago
He's snarky yet so sincerely compassionate.
Hitch is my pin up boy.
qwertyness4 1 year ago
Saying that the US caused destruction and death in Iraq is just plain pathetic. They are not seeing the matter from the right perspective and (the worst part) they refuse to see it - as Hitchens brilliantly explained what happened or is happening or will be happening in that region.
So, before criticizing the war, i suggest to these people to visit Iraq, or at least read some books on the matter!
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte No its an accurate statement. Even members of the US military acknowledge that disbanding the Iraqi army and levelling their infrastructure was a gross and costly mistake. You should grow up a bit before calling people children.
anbu2 1 year ago
@anbu2
Yes, but unfortunately that not the only thing to consider in that war - again you confirmed my point about the simplistic and naive approach on wars that generally people have
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte I have confirmed nothing, I merely take offence to your claim that acknowledging the mistakes made and pain caused is "plain pathetic". If anyone is simplifying the invasion it's you and your 'ends justify the means' attitude.
Since you're interested in the bigger picture I assume you have thought about the consequences of setting a modern day precedent for pre-emptive war?
anbu2 1 year ago
@anbu2
So you think Saddam was better where he was???
Because that what you are implying!
As for the "pre-emptive war" comment, the answer is simple: its either them or we! Are we letting the irrational and religious psychopaths prepare for the destruction of the world?
And if you are capitulating to their demands just because soldiers died be my guest! But i wont and i'm gonna help (or support) fighting these people till the end! (in wars death is NORMAL - wars kill people)
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte "Are we letting the irrational and religious psychopaths prepare for the destruction of the world?" - Yep, you might know them as the 'American Taliban'
anbu2 1 year ago
@anbu2
"American taliban"??
You are really comparing actual dangerous and extreme religious fundamentalism (Islam) with just dumb redneck creationists (Americans)???
And don't tell me that you are one of those Anti American leftists who believes that 9/11 was an inside job....
You are ridiculous
And yes they DO have the means - INFORM YOURSELF!
luarionte 1 year ago
@anbu2
Remember if we don't do anything - they WILL!
And they will interpret the views of people like you (who don't agree with the war) ans cowardice of the West and basically it will make them even more confident of making an attack first - and be sure that they DO have the means and audacity to go through with it!
And don't even think of trying to compare the the motivations of both sides: we have reason on our side - they have irrationality and ignorance and racism!
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte Nice attempt at a strawman. Your 'cowardice' rhetoric reminds me of the rhetoric we used to hear during the Cold War, you know the one where nuclear holocaust didn't happen? Thats the point - they (Islamofascists) *don't* have the means (or the numbers), you're stressing yourself over a boogie man.
The *only* people talking about 'Armageddon' are the Evangelicals and Zionists (ie: the ones that *want* and pray for the end of the world), please tell me you're not one of them?
anbu2 1 year ago
@anbu2
Keep thinking like that and you'll see...
All rational people agree that the indeed are a REAL threat (Sam Harris for example)!!!
"They don't have the numbers"??? HAHAHA How naive you are!
Its not only Iraq we are talking about but the WHOLE ISLAM (do you even know what that means???)
And they don't "pray for the end of the world" - they want to end it THEMSELVES!
Its either that or surrender the whole world to Islamic culture - that's their objective true objective!
luarionte 1 year ago
@anbu2
This has NOTHING to do with Zionists nor evangelicals - it has to do with ISLAMISTS!
"The *only* people talking about 'Armageddon' are the Evangelicals and Zionists"
Do you even know what you are talking about???
You just prove to me that you are that kind of person who really doesn't know whats happening in the world - but thinks he does!
luarionte 1 year ago
I hate these people who are against the Iraq war!
They are just like children - they think the question can be simply put as: "wars are bad because they kill people"). They are naive and childish!
The US is doing them a favor (and also the rest of the world for that matter)!
Thinking that they would be better without the US intervention revels that you don't have any idea of whats going on in Iraq and Mesopotamia in general (unlike Hitchens).
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte LOL - Do you have any arguments that aren't merely conjecture or sweeping generalisations? And you have the gall to imply I'm the conspiracy theorist?
Whole Islam? - You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, 'Islam' doesn't operate as a whole. Do you even know what a standing army is? Do you know what a terrorist cell is? Do you understand the difference between the two?
'Islam' wants to homogenise the world or destroy it? You're arguments are pretty unconvincing...
anbu2 1 year ago
@anbu2
I knew you didn't know anything...
Of course it operates as a whole - it's religion based!!!!
The main objective of Islam (the "empire" that the Koran mentions) is to subdue the "infidels" (Western society) to their beliefs and traditions!
If we resist they will destroys us!!! That's what the Koran "tells" them to do!
Understand now????
Either we surrender to a totalitarian empire or we are destroyed by them - only if we don't fight back of course!
luarionte 1 year ago
@anbu2
And their army is very well prepared, and capable of doing efficiently what they are expected to do (example - 9/11)!
The terrorist ARE the Army - they obey ISLAM - they are only terrorist at our perspective: they are not terrorist in Islam because they just do what their God expects!
They might be primitive in their rationality, but their weapons are anything but primitive - and that's the whole problem!
Read, at least, Sam Harris' book to get a better picture
luarionte 1 year ago
@anbu2
"Terrorist cell" and "standing army" that you mentioned are concepts that are only applied to civilized societies! The are different in CIVILIZED countries!
But there they are ALL the SAME in Islam!!
The actions are terrorist only to our perspective - to them, they are doing the army's job: an official and divine duty, according to the precepts of the Koran!
luarionte 1 year ago
@25:14
If you'll put all the religious people in the kitchen for me, I'll happily fight the crowd.
:D
rkyeun 1 year ago
Go Hitch!
xanthromera 1 year ago 8
Ha! What other public intellectual would have the audacity to say "I'm sorry to say your question didn't give me enough of an erection", yet still manage to charm his interlocuter?
BRussellspouts 1 year ago
Christopher is a lovely man... even when expressing disapproval and disdain. He is quite the gentleman as well as a well spoken, thoughtful, and charismatic human.
WritingJenny73070 1 year ago 4
@FJYardley Decades of Scotch helped alot :)
Webfra14 1 year ago
simply a philosophical genius -- though Christopher Hitchens does express nature as if it were reality right in front of our eyes he does not expound upon this. How could that very point not lead human superstition and/or intellect into believing all of the unknown aspects of nature as then being Divine?
windsorwindow 1 year ago
All joking aside, it seems to me that the best way to discourage extreme faith and willingness to sacrifice one's life or to kill others, to discourage all these things, the best way is to create a vibrant and educated middle class that will question totalitarianism and theocracy is development aid, not bombs. Bombs and gunfire will just put people's backs up and make them dig into their religion - and it's way more expensive than we can do for the entire third world.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 You may have a point there. This would entail loans at sweetheart rates and/or grants to individual businesses, though, not governments
Commercial 'inflitration' certainly works. The youth of Iran form a growing mass of dissatisfaction with the theocratic regime. They want cool clothes and pop music and freedom to enjoy what we've got. Even little girls there want Barbie dolls (businesses there import them from the West) not the local competitor "Sarah" dolls complete with burqa.
queenastilon 1 year ago
Religion is mental illness.
phattebytch 1 year ago 79
it is not a mantal illness it is the lack of the parent to make childs being love and the lack of parents to reassure their yongster about life and give them comfident into themself and i kow it from a fact i alaways taught my kids to be free thinker altought it give someproblem once a while i prefer that to be a sheep wihtout knowing the whys
they never belive in the toothfary or sancta clause cause i always tell them the truth today they growned up and tank me for it
mystisme 11 months ago
The ginger woman is a babe
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago 6
funny man
darkfur35 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science proves fact!..Religion proves myth
Listen to Hitchens & Dorkins and try then
to understand!... its plain and simple -
GET REAL !...& ....WAKE THE FUCK UP !
povethestud 2 years ago
RESPECT!... Hitchens ....so funny!
povethestud 2 years ago
Why shall Hichens 'need a pint or two' of blood?
--
inkstersco 2 years ago
@inkstersco He's probably gonna get shanked by a Muslim one of these days
Ausare 1 year ago
@Ausare all the more reason to bomb the sand monkeys into oblivion i say his one of the great minds of our time.
~Josh
Exiledloser 1 year ago
@Exiledloser you racist fucker
123columbo123 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
I would quite like to fondle the ginger woman's breasts.
--
inkstersco 2 years ago 30
Blasphemy! Thou shalt not say the slur against that group which is spelled with the letters N, I, G, G, R, and E!
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 @darkmiles22 Your quiet the jokster darkmiles. Everone down hear in thedeep souff knowz there ain't no "E" in the word niggr !
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
@inkstersco but not the woman who came after.
stitcha123 1 year ago
@inkstersco Nice lol
darkrx777 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The more you listen to him the more you realize he is a condescending self-indulgent Neoconservative.
We don't get bombed because we are free. We get bombed because of our occupation. Why don't these radicals bomb Canada? Because Canada doesn't assassinate leaders and usurp governments.
youpick4me 2 years ago
@youpick4me Um...And they don't bomb us because we're not only more likely to give in to their political assault for "rights" as they call them. AND we don't pose a militaristic threat. AND Canada has a smaller part on the world stage. AND Canada isn't nearly as what I see as messed up, or I suppose "diverse" as America is, in a way that would make it a choice target to attack for the case for 'freedom'.
Freedom is the vehicle of attack, not the reason.
TheInfernalSpark 2 years ago
they bombed spain and engalnd aswell they bombed india and they even bomb there own muslims who r the wrong kind of muslim.
blaming ourselves for the evil shit they do is just stupid.
deathstar367 1 year ago
Yes, Hitchens what a great way to describe the USA relative to the terrorism towards us.
God I love you, but not for your looks.
Rather I'm the kid who had the golden spoon in my mouth reading "The Loss of Certainty" in elementary school because of my love of math.
You really are great with words.
I disagree with many of your points, but I think you are spot on with certain points that really matter.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is saying that Jesus & Saul of Tarsus were completely crazy.
If so they were the most influential people in the world while crazy.
Interesting indeed.
Especially when one considers that Daniel 9:25 puts the Messiah coming at 4 B.C. per Darius II (instead of Cyrus I) as he allowed the treasures with his command to build the temple and Daniel 9:25 puts Messiah at 34 A.D.
Explaining Zechariah 12:10 written in 520 B.C. becomes even harder to figure out.
Seems crazy is cool.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Influential crazy people are not in short supply. 'Craziness' can give individuals a single-minded fanaticism which makes them powerful friends or enemies.
The old testament was perhaps used by the new testament writers as a 'reference' for compiling their stories to justify Jesus as messiah - where he was born, stabbed in the side when crucified, whatever. The myth took precedent over facts, one suspects.
twold4this 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your right Christians are pretty diverse in thinking and open to science.
The atheist is down right single-minded and rude to Christians. The atheist will fit right in with the Muslim. Both hate Jews and Christians.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
It's a strange dichotomy.
Hitchens praises the military here when today many in the military are Christian thus in Muslim land.
Hitchens worries that religion will fight to the end, but demands that the American soldier do just that.
In like kind the greatest generation from USA that fought against Nazi Germany was mostly Christian, yet Hitchens wants Christians to step down.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Hitchens wants Christianity to step down... he is not downplaying the worth of individual christians as people.
Soldiers in the U.S. army just happen to be mostly christian because christianity is extremely predominent in America. That doesn't mean you have to be a christian to be a loyal patriot.
danytibi 2 years ago 5
Hitchens wants the American soldier to attack Iraq and approves of the war, but feels that the religions of the world will fight until dooms day.
This is a dichotomy.
I'm not arguing against your point I'm saying he is a man divided against himself. A double-minded man so to speak.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
I see. I understand how it doesn't apear to be consistent, but I don't think that means Hitchens is divided against himself. He doesn't see the American offensive as religiously motivated, although he may be wrong, and it may very well be a sort of evangelical crusade, he himself doesn't believe it to be so, so I don't think you can say that he is inconsistent with himself... he may be wrong, but he has a clear view of the subject, at least that's what I think.
danytibi 2 years ago
I think Hitchens is a clear thinker. I said what a strange dichotomy that he demands that religion ends as he feels that they will bring on dooms day by fighting each other and thus wants to end religion.
At the same time he wants the American soldier to defend him from the Middle East (a christian army against a Muslim population).
See the dichotomy?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
No, it is not a dichotomy. Hitchens clearly sees the war as being against the power and influence of Islamic 'fascists' 'fanatics' and their supporters (he believes Saddam Hussein was one). This is different to a war between two religions - Christianity and Islam. You can agree or disagree with his view, but he makes a consistent and powerful argument.
twold4this 2 years ago
Oh, and of course, more in Iraq have been killed, harmed, and displaced since this war started then all of Husseins years in power.
He then mentions that we shouldnt mention deaths because of all the deaths that occur when we arent involved.
Well, now the deaths are on our hands in Afghanistan, and we arent accomplishing anything but to make the enemy stronger by being there.
He is basically saying he wants us to police the world, and he will always be wrong in that regard.
waltermh111 3 years ago
I think you are still feeling symptoms of western guilt.
All the worlds ills are not our fault - but when people start flying OUR technology into OUR buildings for no other reason than paranoid ideology then it IS our REPONSIBILITY to future generation to STOP this shit in other countries.
I detest your premise.
You wish to leave the world in the hand of religious maniacs and despots?
If so - your an evil person in my opinion.
lord69z 3 years ago 26
@lord69z Bravo!
Dominick629 1 year ago
@lord69z Well said. As a person who's economically on the left, I detest this anti-western, moral relativist, bullshit, white guilty, masochism which has infected the western left. You know what else? I do not appologize for the past. I am not sorry. Why? I didn't do it. I had no hand in it. If it's my fault, then you might as well black the children and grand children of a murderer for the crime. Hell if we can't catch the murderer, let's excecute his kids. Ridiculous!
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Indeed. If you perpetuate the old evil ideology or live by it then you should be stopped -- but civilly. If you don't, or in the absence of knowledge that you do, you should not be presumed to inherit the legacy of guilt. We are first and foremost individuals -- something that niggas on the streets have no problem asserting on a daily basis, but when confronted with various issues they retreat under the cover of "our forefathers suffered under racism".
lefredvoncarstein 1 year ago
w111-
Every one of the statements in your comment is factually incorrect, and shows an egregious ignorance of the nature of the conflict, as well as a great deal of masochistic determination to accept blame.
You go apologize and surrender to the Islamic fascists if you want to; don't claim the rest of the US should follow your disgraceful example.
Like Christopher Hitchens, I will proudly fight them to the end.
StevoDog21 3 years ago
send your wife or daughter down the streets of Pakistan in a miniskirt and see how long it takes before she gets gang raped. (if you didnt know gang rape is legislated by the state in Pakistan to "reinforce cultural values" and that 75% of Pakistani prisoners are in jail for the CRIME of being rapped).
maybe that will convince you of the reality of Islamofascism.
JeffBeck13 3 years ago
Besides, you cant fight religion/ideology with war.
Also, he ignores where Hussein got his power from. (Us)
Besides, he talks here, in 07, about how bad hezbollah is, yet what does he think now about them seeing he was wrong and that they are peaceful, having done exactly what their creation set out to do despite being funded by Iran.
He gets too emotional with these things and only sees what he wants to see.
waltermh111 3 years ago
I really am angered when I listen to Hitchens about middle east affairs.
hes definitely blinded by his hate of religion.
One example is his belief that Iran wont work with us, but he ignores that we wont talk with them.
Even the UN cant get anything done because we keep saying its our way or the highway. If the Un ever starts to talk to the Iranians we step in and say that nobody can talk to Iran unless these unwavering demands are met.
waltermh111 3 years ago
I think CH's contempt for Islam clouds his judgement on the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Our being there has caused the death of a million innocent people, not my idea of altruism or defence. Where do you draw the line on "pre-emptive" action? Is "thought crime" prosecution next?
Christopher Hitchens is wrong on this matter.
judoyodan 3 years ago
He doesn't hate Arab people. Well he does, but he used to be anti-war, pro-palestinians and against the Gulf War. You should watch some of his Iraq debates.
verchow1 3 years ago 3
I love what he is saying.
But has he been snorting the white stuff? The water bottle goes to his mouth every other moment -
hoadmaback 3 years ago
i think its because he smokes so much that when he talks he quickly ends up coughing.
lampyman101 3 years ago 3
Public speaking does tend to parch your throat, you try doing it as often as he does and see how long you can go without sipping on something. And what does being thirsty have to do with any effects gained from being high on cocaine?
You made a very inadequate attempt at being funny and I think you should hit yourself.
psymon208 2 years ago 2
You come across as a conceited prick.
I think I should hit you actually.
How does that sound?
hoadmaback 2 years ago
Does anybody know why apostrophes some times show up and sometimes don't? Anybody else having that problem?
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
it a virtue. Meaning, you declare that it is an axiomatic principle by which all people (or your self, most importantly) must adhere to, and in order to disprove you declaration your 'interlocutors' must use that principle (while blindly asserting it). Altruism is the assertion that attempts to make charity a moral practice- it says that the only manner a man may become a moral creature is giving away what he has. The more he gives (works toward his death), the better person he is: sacrifice.
advancethinking 3 years ago
What does that have to do with apostrophes?
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
I have no idea myself. LOL.
...
I must've just seen your name and responded to a past comment or something without reading what you wrote.
advancethinking 3 years ago
God is putting them there to annoy you.
vaghistory 3 years ago
moral in a religious or mystical context than it is in a social context i.e., communism and socialism. An obligation to be charitable is a negation of the definition of the term 'charity;' it only functions on the basis of personal volitional choice. If one is obligated to do so, one becomes a slave to his obligator; if one chooses to be charitable then he must accept that his actions aren't noble. All he did was give away what he earned, to someone who didn't. Do not confuse this with kindness.
advancethinking 3 years ago
My -6 rating for one of comments here is a perfect example of being rational in one field of thinking doesn't guarantee rationality in all other fields of thought. If those of you who disagree with me would give me an argument in an attempt to disprove the fact that charity is amoral then you will hold a better position already. I repeat, no one is obligated to be charitable. The altruism that religion prescribes is just one of the reasons for its immorality. The idea of sacrifice is no more...
advancethinking 3 years ago
Hitchens just clings to that Iraq war for his life...
vikingaprinsessan 3 years ago
as would you have hoped he'd do if a theocratic nation ever gets hold of a nuclear weapon and launches it gleefully as it screams out "allah hu akbar".
i hope you dont think that just smiling, being nice, shaking hands, patting each other backs saying "it'll be ok", making sure we dont offend anyone will bring about a better world when at the other end of the room you have someone you honestly and truly believes you to be a JUST homicide victim of his own hand.
beebobox 3 years ago 3
then why not invade iran rather than iraq? i don't understand the logic there.
the people that were being murdered and tortured in iraq are definitely better off without saddam but i don't think that necessarily means that everyone else is or that somehow the world is a better place.
this war has made us less, not more safe. it seems to me that instead of weakening islamic extremism, this war has prepared a generation of young men willing to die for the cause.
vikingaprinsessan 3 years ago
As George Carlin said: "When it comes to religion you have to stand back in awe, of the all time champion of bullshit".
LaoDecmius 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
To Hitchens:
What's wrong with expecting a pint of blood for your rare blood group?
The fact that you bank on the generosity of other people, and you are making generosity, i.e. charity, a virtue. You expect people to act 'good.' And if you may discover that you will not find the blood you need, you will curse those people and call them non-virtuous? You will have no such right. Another person with your rare blood group is never obligated, morally, to donate blood- you will cry out 'yes' here.
advancethinking 3 years ago
huh?
rekcilkcid 3 years ago
"Huh" to which of my comments? The one where I have a -6 rating, or the one with +4 rating? lol
advancethinking 3 years ago
FUCK RELIGION.
cannofbliss 3 years ago 49
If Islamic extremists really wanted to kill us we would have already had another terrorist attack, our borders are wide open. Also, if we were in danger of terrorism wouldn't our government immediately close the borders?
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago
Just take a look at what happened to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter when he told the truth about Iraq and Iran. His book Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change, is an excellent read.
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago
Interesting, I will have to take a look. Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy by Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Aschcar is also very good and it sounds like the views are similar.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
I have read Hitchens god is not Great and I read between the lines, he is in favor of socialist globalization through the United Nations. Lets not forget that we went to war under a UN resolution. Also, we can no longer afford to go to war neither in life or monetarily it is killing the middle class. We currently have bases in 130 countries our country can no longer sustain this, it is economic disaster for US citizens. Our empire is coming down and people still look for dragons to slay.
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago
Hitchens can be quoted from many different public occasions, most of which can be found on YouTube, that he is not a socialist. He says clearly that he used to be a socialist, and is not anymore.
advancethinking 3 years ago 4
nicely put!
lancejujitsu 3 years ago
read a bit of chomsky also, you'll see it isn't as black and white as you put it up in this comment.
i'm sure you know that it isn't this simple of course, but this comment would lead one to believe that you do, incorrectly, so i add again :)
beebobox 3 years ago
I have read chomsky and I don't trust him.
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago 3
Hitchens is wrong about the War, we will continue to have blowback consequences if we keep intervening in the middle east for Israels interests. Iran hates us because the CIA overthrew democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953.
xxmonickkkkaxx 3 years ago
Hitchens is just so _cool_.
lordlacolith 3 years ago 7
I like cheese.
Letseatshite 3 years ago 2
So start a religion.
libertyisntdeadyet 3 years ago 3
I doubt I have heard a speaker as reasonable and logical as Hitchens (and Harris, Dawkins, etc) is.
How could Xians or Muslims listen to him and NOT question their own beliefs and/or principles, even in the smallest possible way?
lucidatheist 3 years ago 6
"anyone who wanted to guess my opinion would be insulting me" lol
nocab1984 3 years ago 3
Man, at every Q&A Hitchens does probably at least 50% of the poeple who come up to the microphone do so only to hear their own voice or be the centre of attention. They ask things which he's covered a thousand times over or just make a comment. It really cuts into the productivity of these things.
And also, I hate how people at these things feel the need to start clapping every single time he says something they agree with! Save it for the end.
jacobssandy 3 years ago
whats weird is that i saw this video a long time ago and didnt agree with hitchens, but now watching it again i find my self smiling and almost agreeing with him?...
cant1be1original 3 years ago 5
I love that. It means you're starting to listen to reason!! Just remove the "almost" and the ? and you're there!
IBIRDASH 3 years ago 4
Seen him before doing "the circuit" and probably on Charlie Rose, but it's been awhile.
I've had quite a bit of respect for Mr. Hitchens prior to viewing this video, but now come away from it with a profound respect: He is vastly intelligent and unwaveringly principled. I learned a TON from watching this. Thank you, Mr. Hitchens.
fexdid 3 years ago 3
I am a big fan of his as well and have also learned a lot from watching his videos. You should check out, "Hitchens vs. Hitchens" on YouTube. It is a debate with his brother on religion and the war in Iraq. They are both very smart and it gives the most in depth account of his opinions of anything I have found regarding the Iraq war.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago 4
that last guy was iranian i think
AIDINSWE 3 years ago
i like hitchens-he's funny, witty,sharp. he's good because he's not a scientist like Dawkins he's a journalist so he points out the quirks and discrepencies in religion instead of scientific flaws.
davidlong211 3 years ago 7
i am not gay but, is it just me or is this guy super sexy?
tardesnegras 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, you're just gay
keylime2555 3 years ago
Try this simple gay test!
if ((your a guy) and (you find guys sexy)) then you're gay!
Hope this helps!
mccote 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow. I'm a big fan of Dawkins and Harris, but this guy is something else. Arrogant beyond belief, and quite frankly i completely disagree with his political views. What a bizarre outlook on the issues in Iraq. It goes to show it's not just religion that you can twist to justify anything you'd like to justify.
Beatsmith2005 3 years ago
He's only "arrogant" through your eyes because you so profoundly disagree with him. Sharp, yes; but that's not arrogance.
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago 4
why not say that saddam was an evil and manipulative man, who used whatever means at his disposal to achieve his purpose, and the jihad was pretty much handed to him and that he deserved what heappened to him, why burden religion with his evil deeds?
zapopaul 3 years ago
yes christopher, but regarding saddam, couldn't one bring up, your own argument actually, about stalin. i mean, saddam shouldn't have been in the dictatorship business if he couldn't take advantage of the koran and the jihad which is advertised in that book. aren't being a hypocrite and applying a double standard?sorry chris, you wen't too far in your accusations and you got caught, if only you would have kept your mouth shut
zapopaul 3 years ago
The difference being that Stalin created his own personality cult rather than using the Bible; Saddam just used existing religion, the Koran. Not the same thing!
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago 2
Really, it isn't? Both derive their power arbitrarily, both deny liberty arbitrarily, both assume sanction- one by the so called force of society, and the other by the so called force of 'god.' Both variations of idiocy, totalitarianism and religious totalitarianism, are two forms of the same mysticism. One are the mystics of muscle, who force you to comply to their whim with a gun to your head and call a traitor to society, in the other case you would a traitor to god, they cry ur soul or life
advancethinking 3 years ago
Sounds like an objectivist speaking. OK, you're right, but the proclamation of power based upon control of industry by the proletariat and the will of god are still different, though no less disastrous.
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
Yes, this is an objectivist speaking- very perceptive. They obviously are different processes but, both reach the same end. Both paths lead to that same end of the destruction of self-determination, and forfeiting ownership of your own life; both are equally immoral.
advancethinking 3 years ago
I recognize Rands language there. Im tending towards Objectivism myself after reading Rand and listening to her views for the first time over the last few months but her labeling of any form of helping other people as altruistic is a bit troubling. Like Christopher Hitchens said its possible to help others without licking their shoes (giving blood is his number one example).
"Both paths lead to that same end of the destruction of self-determination..." that's what I said.
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
Yeah, which to me doesn't make them all that different.
Be sure to make the distinction between kindness and altruism. This point is subtle, but important in her work. There's nothing wrong with being kind, polite, in fact kindness is the form obligation to other human beings that you are under. That obligation is your reason; you owe human beings the same respect you do for all things (inanimate too): the same respect for truth. There's nothing wrong with giving, as long as you do NOT make...
advancethinking 3 years ago
You're not obligated to be kind to other people by anything other than your own self-interest. How obligated are you to be kind to terrorists who wish your immediate censorship and destruction? How obligated are they to respect YOUR demand that they leave you alone? Game theory doesn't deal with "Obligations" in the deontologist reckoning of the term, it deals with Rewards and Punishments (teleological and consequentialist territory).
psymon208 2 years ago
Nature will not force you to be kind i.e., deal with others with rationality and not with unreason. Morally you are obligated, naturally you are not under any obligation to follow any moral principle. You do so for the sake of your own self i.e., your own self interest. If you deal with others irrationally, they will respond to you in the same fashion- you both lose. Being kind to people who initiate the use of force against you in another issue. You are, in the same manner, morally obligated...
advancethinking 2 years ago
to retaliate only for the sake of your own survival. Dealing with people who wish to trade with you and do not intend to be hostile with you, are people with whom you (if you wish to better your life) should be kind with. You may preemptively be hostile out of certainty that say, terrorists, are planning to cause harm to you. If they too wish to live in a society based on reason and individual rights (which they abandon in the first place) they are moral obligation deal with you rationally.
advancethinking 2 years ago
I don't like that guy. I much prefer Dawkins who talks about figthing religious beliefs because they're false only. But this guy talking about US going to war, YET AGAIN, does he really thinks it's gonna help wipe out islam in anyway? What about christianity? Also he can go and die himself in the warzone, it's too easy to send the army and have young people die for something they don't understand. Finally I think he has the unsane devotion to jews that is so politically correct in US, too bad..
alliax 3 years ago
I am not a gun hugging redneck when I say that it is essential that we hold our position in Iraq, and not give in to the liberal position of 'live and let live'
firesteel1 3 years ago
You may not be a 'gun hugging redneck' but you've most certainly drank the kool-aid.
It's not a 'liberal' position that we get out of Iraq, 80% of the country wishes it so.
keylime2555 3 years ago 2