Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 01:10 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 11:05 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:28 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 05:14 PM

France Muslims were in d...
January 22, 2021, 11:51 PM

Kashmir endgame
January 21, 2021, 04:46 PM

Nostalgia, nostalgia...
January 21, 2021, 03:33 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2021, 06:25 PM

Reading stabbings
January 15, 2021, 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
January 15, 2021, 12:20 PM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....

 (Read 9316 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #30 - July 05, 2011, 02:56 PM

    Because I can.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #31 - July 05, 2011, 02:57 PM

    Well, what qualifies a person as a supporter of Western Imperialism?
    Don't know about Harris,

     Oh you don't know harris? here watch him..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ

    that is 2hrs debate between Dr. William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris

    Quote
    but I've heard Hitchens explicitly express his support for US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. You can youtube his interviews, and judge for yourself.

    So what is wrong with he supporting the war as long as you have the right to criticize him on what he says??

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #32 - July 05, 2011, 02:57 PM

    Don't ask me. I'm not the one making the claim.
    Wait a sec... who doesn't support intervention in Libya?


    I don't. For many reasons.

    Quote

    Because I can.



    Wow, captivating stuff, the fact that you waste your time posting on what you consider a shit thread is really telling.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #33 - July 05, 2011, 02:59 PM

    'Telling' you what?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #34 - July 05, 2011, 03:03 PM

    Wait a sec... who doesn't support intervention in Libya?


    A lot of people. There's a strong argument to be made against it, though, ultimately I find it difficult to oppose the intervention given the circumstances at the time the intervention first occurred. But the people arguing against it do have a point.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #35 - July 05, 2011, 03:07 PM

    They can make a valid criticism against the means that are, or might, be employed, but they cannot criticise the mission with a straight face.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #36 - July 05, 2011, 03:08 PM

    Not jealous, and I don't believe they are harmful or dangerous to society, but I do believe they are A) novel B) relatively unimportant C) overrated (especially on forums like this). I think we have much bigger problems than religion and we need to start focusing on them, these guys are a distraction.

    That is funny post from you interested212., you were RANTING AGAINST these four guys and now you are saying

    1).  I don't believe they are harmful or dangerous to society..
    So what is the problem?? they are harmless

    2).  I do believe they are A) novel B) relatively unimportant
    Huh!?  what novelty they have .. you are turning around lol..  if they are unimportant then you are wasting your time talking about them..  But you have to realize  they are popular among educated crowd and their views appears to be FAR BETTER THAN WHAT YOU READ IN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES and what hear from religious preachers.

    2C) overrated (especially on forums like this)
    Well  may be., but I don't know., may be your comparison of a forum with them & their books/writings  is INVALID..

    Quote
    I think we have much bigger problems than religion and we need to start focusing on them, these guys are a distraction.

    Talk to me interested212

    what is the bigger problem you have or the forum has or the forum members should focus., and tell me how did they distract you., you are the one who opened this thread ..lol.. So you are the one who is distracting the forum..  Wink

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #37 - July 05, 2011, 03:09 PM

    Oh you don't know harris? here watch him..


    I know who Sam Harris is, and I've watched that debate with Craig.

    PS: "Don' know about Harris" was referring to his political views.

    Quote
    So what is wrong with he supporting the war as long as you have the right to criticize him on what he says??


    I didn't say it was wrong. I implied that his strong support for all these wars is what leads people to believe that he is pro-Western imperialism.

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #38 - July 05, 2011, 03:10 PM

    One reason I could never support intervention in Libya is the sheer hypocrisy, there are so many ongoing conflicts that recieve little to no international attention (let alone intervention) many of them more serious and longer lasting than Libya, yet Libya gets the attention, anyone surprised that an oil rich country gets the intervention while the others don't? Sure, we can make a case for the intervention, of course, Qaddafi is an evil monster and should be stopped, but what about all the other (worst) evil monsters, why aren't they stopped? Why Qaddafi? It can't have been a name picked out of a hat.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #39 - July 05, 2011, 03:11 PM

    Yeah, I keep hearing about this support for the big bad (scary music...) 'Western Imperialism' that Hitchens and Harris supposedly hold. Whenever anyone who mentions it is pressed, though, they either stutter a bit and say some half-arsed vague shit, or quote something they said about some specific war or political situation on some casual chat show once, or they just go right ahead and shamelessly quotemine a book or article they wrote.

    It all seems like straw-clutching, to be honest. Symptomatic of a deeper dislike for them.


    So Hitchens long time support of the Iraq War is just straw-clutching?

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    - John Keats
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #40 - July 05, 2011, 03:14 PM

    That is funny post from you interested212., you were RANTING AGAINST these four guys and now you are saying



    I'm ranting against the status given by people, not them themselves (necessarily-there are a lot of less famous people to choose, but I chose these guys because they are a good distraction)

    Quote

    1).  I don't believe they are harmful or dangerous to society..
    So what is the problem?? they are harmless



    They are harmless, the fact that they are distraction isn't harmless.

    Quote

    2).  I do believe they are A) novel B) relatively unimportant
    Huh!?  what novelty they have .. you are turning around lol..  if they are unimportant then you are wasting your time talking about them..  But you have to realize  they are popular among educated crowd and their views appears to be FAR BETTER THAN WHAT YOU READ IN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES and what hear from religious preachers.



    Religious scripture can be a problem, but not as big a problem as economics, politics etc.. The fanboys and fangirls help to divert attention away from the deadly serious issues.

    Quote

    2C) overrated (especially on forums like this)
    Well  may be., but I don't know., may be your comparison of a forum with them & their books/writings  is INVALID..
    Talk to me interested212

    what is the bigger problem you have or the forum has or the forum members should focus., and tell me how did they distract you., you are the one who opened this thread ..lol.. So you are the one who is distracting the forum..  Wink



    No, my main problem is with the attention people give to the problem of religion.....people like Hitchens, Dawkins etc make this worst.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #41 - July 05, 2011, 03:15 PM

    One reason I could never support intervention in Libya is the sheer hypocrisy, there are so many ongoing conflicts that recieve little to no international attention (let alone intervention) many of them more serious and longer lasting than Libya, yet Libya gets the attention, anyone surprised that an oil rich country gets the intervention while the others don't?

    Commit to expensive intervention in all the world's problematic hotspots, or none at all? Doesn't seem like a very nuanced argument to me.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #42 - July 05, 2011, 03:16 PM

    So Hitchens long time support of the Iraq War is just straw-clutching?



    Oh no, she asked for proof of Hitchen's support for Western Imperialism, the fact that Hitchens states point blank that he supports the war in Iraq  (and Afghanistan-both of these wars waged on behalf of weapon manufacturers, profiteers, and oil companies-basically, neo-imperialists) isn't proof, it's nothing.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #43 - July 05, 2011, 03:16 PM

    They can make a valid criticism against the means that are, or might, be employed, but they cannot criticise the mission with a straight face.


    The means are not the main issue. The primary arguments against the mission are:

    1) It is not a humanitarian mission. The imperialist governments have self-interested reasons for involving themselves in Libya.
    2) Western intervention in the affairs of that part of the world tend to end up doing more harm than good ("blowback"), and amongst the Libyan rebels there are some pretty nasty Islamists and this could end up being Afghanistan (i.e. US/UK/Pak intervention in the Soviet-Afghan conflict) all over again.

    As to (1) I believe this is essentially correct, but I don't think it was a good enough reason to oppose intervention when the Libyan resistance was on the verge of mass slaughter-- unfortunately the selfish imperialist countries were the only ones with the means and will to prevent it from happening, thus I did not believe it appropriate to oppose the intervention. However (2) is harder for me to dismiss or argue against, I can only say that I think the risk of allowing the rebels to be crushed outweighs the risk of potential blowback in this particular scenario.

    Commit to expensive intervention in all the world's problematic hotspots, or none at all? Doesn't seem like a very nuanced argument to me.


    I think his point is argument 1 I listed above.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #44 - July 05, 2011, 03:17 PM

    So Hitchens long time support of the Iraq War is just straw-clutching?


    The charge isn't support for the Iraq War. The charge is being a Pro-Imperialist.

    There is significant difference in these two things.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #45 - July 05, 2011, 03:18 PM

    Commit to expensive intervention in all the world's problematic hotspots, or none at all? Doesn't seem like a very nuanced argument to me.


    Choosing places on the basis of your economic benefit for corporations and corporate states.....

    Sure, let's say they could afford only one intervention a year, I would support them if it were chosen purely for humanitarian reasons (IE the worst conflict or the most dangerous) but the only reason this intervention was chosen was due to the financial possibilities, don't kind yourself, they wouldn't be doing a thing (notice how reluctant they are on Syria) if there was no financial potential behind it.

    You know it's true.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #46 - July 05, 2011, 03:18 PM

    interested212:

    I have to disagree on your shit-list and the rest of what you are writing interested. Like i said i support their critic of religion - and its needed. Yes. Religion is not the main problem in the world (something which particularly Hitchens mentions). But it is a huge problem.

    What i am against is blindly accepting the Four Horsemen as some kind of Prophets. They have their flawed arguments just as anyone. And its very easy to see how two of them are choosing pest (Western imperialism) instead of cholera (Islamic imperialism).

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    - John Keats
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #47 - July 05, 2011, 03:19 PM

    The charge isn't support for the Iraq War. The charge is being a Pro-Imperialist.

    There is significant difference in these two things.


    Support for imperialist war=pro-imperialist.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #48 - July 05, 2011, 03:20 PM

    The charge isn't support for the Iraq War. The charge is being a Pro-Imperialist.

    There is significant difference in these two things.


    The Iraq war was done for the purpose of imperialism

    1) economic benefit to states/corporations (especially weapons manufacturers and oil exporters)
    2) american influence in the middle east
    3) pre-emptive self defence (this is an imperalist tactic)

    So support for Iraq is often support for imperialism, even if a different excuse is given.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #49 - July 05, 2011, 03:22 PM

    interested212:

    I have to disagree on your shit-list and the rest of what you are writing interested. Like i said i support their critic of religion - and its needed. Yes. Religion is not the main problem in the world (something which particularly Hitchens mentions). But it is a huge problem.

    What i am against is blindly accepting the Four Horsemen as some kind of Prophets. They have their flawed arguments just as anyone. And its very easy to see how two of them are choosing pest (Western imperialism) instead of cholera (Islamic imperialism).


    Fair enough, I'm glad you were civil in your argument.

    Sure, some people will give more weight to the religion problem, I give less wieght to it perhaps because religion is less of a problem in my personal life-but I'm glad that you dislike the taking of the four horsemen as prophets (which too many people seem to do among ex-Muslims and atheists in general)

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #50 - July 05, 2011, 03:22 PM

    Oh no, she asked for proof of Hitchen's support for Western Imperialism, the fact that Hitchens states point blank that he supports the war in Iraq  (and Afghanistan-both of these wars waged on behalf of weapon manufacturers, profiteers, and oil companies-basically, neo-imperialists) isn't proof, it's nothing.


    Seems like not.....

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    - John Keats
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #51 - July 05, 2011, 03:24 PM

    The means are not the main issue. The primary arguments against the mission are:

    1) It is not a humanitarian mission. The imperialist governments have self-interested reasons for involving themselves in Libya.
    2) Western intervention in the affairs of that part of the world tend to end up doing more harm than good ("blowback"), and amongst the Libyan rebels there are some pretty nasty Islamists and this could end up being Afghanistan (i.e. US/UK/Pak intervention in the Soviet-Afghan conflict) all over again.

    As to (1) I believe this is essentially correct, but I don't think it was a good enough reason to oppose intervention when the Libyan resistance was on the verge of mass slaughter-- unfortunately the selfish imperialist countries were the only ones with the means and will to prevent it from happening, thus I did not believe it appropriate to oppose the intervention. However (2) is harder for me to dismiss or argue against, I can only say that I think the risk of allowing the rebels to be crushed outweighs the risk of potential blowback in this particular scenario.

    I think his point is argument 1 I listed above.

    Well, yeah, but to expect a pure humanitarian military intervention is naivety anyway. We all should hold that standard as our highest ideal standard, but also give a little leeway for realism too. However good or evil a nation is, it isn't gonna bankrupt itself for 'the greater good'.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #52 - July 05, 2011, 03:25 PM


    Religious scripture can be a problem, but not as big a problem as economics, politics etc.. The fanboys and fangirls help to divert attention away from the deadly serious issues.

    what?? I can try to understand rest of your points by putting my feet in your shoes but.. but the above words of yours make me to think about your college or professional background..

     Are you an economist or MS/Ph.D in Economics  or Political  Scientist ??

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #53 - July 05, 2011, 03:27 PM

    Support for imperialist war=pro-imperialist.

    Well, if that's how loose your definition is, not much point having an argument about it.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #54 - July 05, 2011, 03:28 PM

    Well, yeah, but to expect a pure humanitarian military intervention is naivety anyway. We all should hold that standard as our highest ideal standard, but also give a little leeway for realism too. However good or evil a nation is, it isn't gonna bankrupt itself for 'the greater good'.


    There's a difference between bankrupting itself for the greater good and using a very distressing situation as an excuse to flex it's muscles and (later) to exploit it financially, this has been the backbone of Western (and let's been honest, most empires have done the same) actions and interventions for years, sure, I understand your argument that no country is going to intervene purely because it cares (although Kosovo might be an example?) and I agree, but I don't agree that we should allow countries to intervene where the aim is to enrich corporate actors.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #55 - July 05, 2011, 03:29 PM

    what?? I can try to understand rest of your points by putting my feet in your shoes but.. but the above words of yours make me to think about your college or professional background..

     Are you an economist or MS/Ph.D in Economics  or Political  Scientist ??


    No, but I am concerned about the coming financial collapse (ask any serious economist and they will tell you, even the establishment economists are expecting it) which will make the last one look like a holiday, the fact that people are too ignorant/complacent/distracted to deal with the issue in a serious way will make it all the worst when it happens (and the wya we are carrying on, it will be horrific).

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #56 - July 05, 2011, 03:33 PM

    Well, yeah, but to expect a pure humanitarian military intervention is naivety anyway. We all should hold that standard as our highest ideal standard, but also give a little leeway for realism too. However good or evil a nation is, it isn't gonna bankrupt itself for 'the greater good'.


    Oh indeed, but where that leads for me is questioning and challenging the nation-state system and the capitalist economic superstructure it operates within.

    Well, if that's how loose your definition is, not much point having an argument about it.


    Loose? Um, well, if supporting the aggressive invasion of a country that's not anywhere near your borders and hasn't recently attacked you or your allies, for the purpose of setting up a friendly regime, exploiting its natural resources, and gaining hegemony over the region isn't "pro-imperialist", then, tell me, what the fuck is? I think you're gonna have a hard time finding a better definition than that.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #57 - July 05, 2011, 03:34 PM

    There's a difference between bankrupting itself for the greater good and using a very distressing situation as an excuse to flex it's muscles and (later) to exploit it financially...

    I can't answer that because I can't see the future. Not all wars fit into a neat little template either.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #58 - July 05, 2011, 03:38 PM

    Loose? Um, well, if supporting the aggressive invasion of a country that's not anywhere near your borders and hasn't recently attacked you or your allies, for the purpose of setting up a friendly regime, exploiting its natural resources, and gaining hegemony over the region isn't "pro-imperialist", then, tell me, what the fuck is? I think you're gonna have a hard time finding a better definition than that.

    Well, I was wondering more how you reconcile Hitchens' evident Marxist/Trotskyist political views, and his vehement opposition to Imperialism in general, scathing criticism of various cases of US intervention that lays bare details often overlooked, with a pro-Imperialism agenda, based purely on his opinion about one particular war (Iraq)?

    I mean "Support of Iraq War (regardless of reason) = Support of Imperialism" sounds an awful lot like Bush saying "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Sounds extremely Black & White.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #59 - July 05, 2011, 03:40 PM

    I can't answer that because I can't see the future. Not all wars fit into a neat little template either.


    I agree with you completely, but (and I would like to make this clear) the issue with libyan intervention isn't the act itself but the pretext-many will disagree, but I don't believe in the ends justify the means when the means is done for the purpose of capitalist exploitationism and geo-politics, Libya is a fantastic example of selfish interventionism.

    "Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

    What apple stores are like.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »