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


Reading stabbings
Today at 10:32 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 02:44 PM

Coronavirus crisis
Today at 12:20 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 02:51 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 12:37 AM

Qur'anic studies today
January 12, 2021, 03:05 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 12, 2021, 11:42 AM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
January 07, 2021, 03:21 AM

The Lady of the Heaven., ...
January 04, 2021, 05:10 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 01, 2021, 10:01 AM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 9159 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #60 - July 05, 2011, 03:48 PM

    Well, I think we should criticise both means and ends, as and when they happen, case-by-case, as things in themselves.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #61 - July 05, 2011, 03:50 PM

    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)?


    Thanks for better laying out your potential objections to Hitchens being pro-imperialist.

    I would say he's jumped the fence-- like many of the neocons he's allied himself with he's gone from being an authoritarian socialist to being an authoritarian capitalist. He no longer considers himself a socialist, though he does still agree with parts of Marx's analysis of capitalism (and he wouldn't be the only non-socialist to do so), and I'd be interested to see exactly what "scathing criticisms" of intervention you're talking about, his reasoning, and if they are post-2003 criticisms.

    Quote
    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.


    Sounds like it, but it's not. The former is an objective analysis, which is saying that if you support imperialist war then you are objectively pro-imperialist, whereas the latter is saying that if you don't support imperialist war that the imperialists will subjectively classify you as a terrorist-- i.e. not an objective analysis, simply a fuckin threat from a bully.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #62 - July 05, 2011, 04:19 PM

    I don't like Dawkins much, he seems to be really up himself.  I must say though that without Dawkins + Hitchens I'd still be a deist and perhaps even a theist.

    Dawkins broke my logical attachment to the supernatural, and Hitchens broken my emotional attachment.  I can't help but be grateful whether I like them or not....and I really do like Hitchens.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #63 - July 05, 2011, 04:20 PM



    What i am against is blindly accepting the Four Horsemen as some kind of Prophets. They have their flawed arguments just as anyone.


    Well said.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #64 - July 05, 2011, 04:22 PM

    I don't like Dawkins much, he seems to be really up himself.  I must say though that without Dawkins + Hitchens I'd still be a deist and perhaps even a theist.

    Dawkins broke my logical attachment to the supernatural, and Hitchens broken my emotional attachment.  I can't help but be grateful whether I like them or not....and I really do like Hitchens.


    What accounts for your fondness for Mr. Snitchens?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #65 - July 05, 2011, 04:22 PM

    Thanks for better laying out your potential objections to Hitchens being pro-imperialist.

    I would say he's jumped the fence-- like many of the neocons he's allied himself with he's gone from being an authoritarian socialist to being an authoritarian capitalist. He no longer considers himself a socialist, though he does still agree with parts of Marx's analysis of capitalism (and he wouldn't be the only non-socialist to do so)...

    Well, maybe you're right, but I'm just wondering, are you basing this on anything in particular? I'd be interested to see it. It's convenient to throw those who might (allegedly) air views that are implicitly pro-Imperialism into a box and say "Fuck them", but it isn't necessarily correct to do so.

    I've only dipped into Hitch 22, not fully read it, and his writings of Vietnam, Castro, and whatnot, and not particularly interested or informed. This is your territory, politics guy. Educate me.

    I'd just like to add that I don't agree with all of Hitchens' views. I do find myself agreeing more often than not, though.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #66 - July 05, 2011, 04:27 PM

    Sounds like it, but it's not. The former is an objective analysis, which is saying that if you support imperialist war then you are objectively pro-imperialist, whereas the latter is saying that if you don't support imperialist war that the imperialists will subjectively classify you as a terrorist-- i.e. not an objective analysis, simply a fuckin threat from a bully.

    That isn't necessarily true, though. You'd find a lot of Iraq exiles supporting a 'pro-Imperial' war, just so they could go home. Hell, they were were on permanent protest in Trafalgar Square, desperate for intervention in the lead up to the war. They would also be automatically pro-Imperialist too, according to that standard.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #67 - July 05, 2011, 05:11 PM

    Well, maybe you're right, but I'm just wondering, are you basing this on anything in particular?


    Yes, on his support for the largest imperialist military conflict of the 21st century ("The War on Terror"), which at this point has lasted 4 years longer than WWII. I understand that may not be enough evidence for you, but it's more than enough for me.

    Quote
    I'd be interested to see it. It's convenient to throw those who might (allegedly) air views that are implicitly pro-Imperialism into a box and say "Fuck them", but it isn't necessarily correct to do so.


    Well, that's what I do and that's what I'm going to continue doing. That doesn't mean I will reject any analysis they make out-of-hand, for knowledge and accurate analysis is not the exclusive domain of the righteous-- even Hitler made some good observations-- nor does it mean I will disagree with them on every issue (e.g. I agree with Snitchens on Palestine for the most part and I agree with the racist, authoritarian trash Pat Buchanan on NAFTA). However it does mean I'm going to identify those people for what they are and dismiss their broader world-view, and always keep that world-view in mind while they are discussing specific situations.

    Quote
    I've only dipped into Hitch 22, not fully read it, and his writings of Vietnam, Castro, and whatnot, and not particularly interested or informed. This is your territory, politics guy. Educate me.


    Nah. I'm no expert on Snitchens. He's really intelligent and well-educated (and entertaining) crank, but I still think he's a crank. He went from an intellectually combative polemicising gadfly who opposed imperialism to an intellectually combative polemicising gadfly who supports imperialism. Now it's interesting to read an article by such a person from time to time, but I do not consider such people (like for example his former friend on the left and now bitter enemy Alexander Cockburn) to be serious political theorists, strategists or activists, thus I'm not gonna spend a lot of my political reading making myself an expert on their views on every topic.

    Quote
    I'd just like to add that I don't agree with all of Hitchens' views. I do find myself agreeing more often than not, though.


    Actually, were I to go through every one of his current positions on every fucking topic he holds a position on, it's possible I may too. Problem is that the main thing I disagree with him on is big enough for me to consider him to be an enemy of social progress, freedom and justice, no matter how well he may come out on the other issues.

    It's kinda like when you meet someone who you really get along with, have a lot in common with, even share a lot of political and social opinions with, then you find out they hate Jews or [insert group they're hateful and bigoted against here]-- you may think they're great other than that, but that one issue is just too big for you to dismiss and if you can't get them past it, you're not gonna be friends with them.

    Snitchens supports wars of imperialist hegemony and conquest that are spilling blood and wrecking lives to make a few wealthy and powerful people wealthier and more powerful-- wars which, in the long run (and often in the short run), will be counterproductive to the goals of liberation and social progress that Snitchens purports are being assisted by these conflicts. That's just too big of an issue for me to get past and focus primarily on the common ground I may have with him.

    That isn't necessarily true, though. You'd find a lot of Iraq exiles supporting a 'pro-Imperial' war, just so they could go home. Hell, they were were on permanent protest in Trafalgar Square, desperate for intervention in the lead up to the war. They would also be automatically pro-Imperialist too, according to that standard.


    Excellent fucking point, and a pretty big exception to my statement (though I would say it's an exception which tests the general rule) but a couple of things all the same:

    (1) That these exiles have chosen to support imperialist war as a means to a non-imperialist end does not mean this is their only option. I met an Iraqi union delegation visiting Philadelphia, this was in 2004 or 2005 and they had varying opinions on the war. Some, like the exiles you describe, early on supported the war as the means to end the rule of Saddam, and supported continued occupation until the situation was stabilized. Others did not favor the war but also did not strongly oppose it due to practical considerations of wanting to get rid of Saddam and some of them did not actively oppose the occupation as they worried they would be wiped out by remaining Baathists or Islamist militias if the US pulled out too soon. Then some supported the war to overthrow Saddam but wanted immediate withdrawal of occupation forces once this goal was achieved. Still others, like this one Communist union leader who had spent almost 20 years in prison under Saddam, opposed the war from the beginning and believed the Iraqi people should liberate themselves without any assistance from the imperialists.

    (2) Snitchens ain't no Iraqi exile. His stated reasons for supporting the war are little different than that of the neocons, who, in my opinion, are very clearly supportive of imperialist goals.

    EDIT:

    Actually, although I still consider my statement that supporting imperialists wars means one is pro-imperialist as generally correct, your challenge was great enough that I feel compelled to reformulate it in a more nuanced manner--

    I. In the majority of circumstances support for an imperialist war objectively makes one pro-imperialist even when one subjectively believes otherwise.

    II. So far I see two possible exceptions:

    (A) An individual or group has a material interest in the ends of an imperialist war which is

    (1) morally and materially compelling
    (2) independent of the imperialists' goals
    (3) reasonably believed by the individual or group to only be achievable in the foreseeable future by means of imperialist war

    --e.g. the Libyan rebels and Iraqi exiles/legitimate, progressive resisters to Saddam

    (B) Support for one party to an inter-imperialist war when the person(s) supporting that party reasonably believe the outcome of the other party being victorious would be qualitatively and significantly worse-- e.g. if Nazi Germany and its imperialist Axis partners had defeated their imperialist Allied rivals in WWII.

    Would you consider this to be an acceptable reformulation of my statement?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #68 - July 05, 2011, 06:45 PM

    Quote
     Al-Ma`arri  says

    Quote
    What i am against is blindly accepting the Four Horsemen as some kind of Prophets. They have their flawed arguments just as anyone.


    And Sufi-10 agrees .. Cheesy
    Well said.


    What? how can you say that "well Said"  Z-10.,   You two guys are doing exactly same thing as what people did to Christ and even Muhammad...

    Did these four  Four Horsemen  announce that they are prophets??  Did their followers(whoever they are) announce "they are prophets??  unlike Muhammad/Jesus  followers??

     No...  

    it appears You guys don't like what these guys are saying on tubes or in their books  or you may not like  their popularity in general,   hence you are making them as Prophets and beating them up..   That is unfair..

    What you guys are supposed to do is ., pick up their books, their words or their tubes and  prove  to the reader  "WHERR THEY ARE WRONG"

    These blanket accusation... err I don't like them  because
    Quote
     they are right wingers.. western imperialists.. or hard headed atheists who talk too much against Islam.. etc..etc..

      is of no use..

    So my suggestion to you guys is., pick up one of their tubes and prove to the readers..

    here.. Dawkins is wrong.,  here  Sam Harris wrong., here Hitchins is wrong..

    That will help in countering the 4 horsemen and their supporters. More over in CEMB no one is giving them BLANKET CHECK to agree with everything they say...

    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 #69 - July 05, 2011, 06:53 PM


    it appears You guys don't like what these guys are saying on tubes or in their books  or you may not like  their popularity in general,   hence you are making them as Prophets and beating them up..   That is unfair..

    What you guys are supposed to do is ., pick up their books, their words or their tubes and  prove  to the reader  "WHERR THEY ARE WRONG"




    All four of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are metaphysically and theologically naive. I believe I've spoken here before about Dawkins' awful argument against God, Harris' naive idea that morality can be quantified etc etc.

    Having said that, I agree with the general idea that these four should be lauded for bringing dogmatic religion into the spotlight - it's just a shame that none of them are actually qualified theologians. They should stick with bringing the claims of religion into the spotlight and leave the idea of god separate (as it should be).

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #70 - July 05, 2011, 07:54 PM

    Well as you have the right to speak they(Atheists)  should have the same rights., Don't you agree with me Tmp?? 

    Tell me from their words(pick it from them) some of the statements from them that you think are the "Advocating Hatred Against Religion".,

     It is true that they are saying  "the religions and their scriptures are  outdated and their way of looking at this world and future humanity is better than what you see from religious books and religious preachers"

    Are they wrong in saying it? Should the governments and states BAN THEM??

    Yes, everyone should have freedom of speech. I retract what I said earlier and edited my post.
    Is it worth asking you to explain or give examples of any of this stuff?

    No, but I edited my post and retract whatever I said earlier. I got carried away.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #71 - July 05, 2011, 09:47 PM

    All four of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are metaphysically and theologically naive. I believe I've spoken here before about Dawkins' awful argument against God, Harris' naive idea that morality can be quantified etc etc.

    Arey Bhai., in this world  Some great folks have the  power in their words  "Oh loog  Janwaroham  kho Insaan banayagah"  and some scoundrels have Physical and financial power  "Oh loog  Insaan  kho Janwar banayagah"

    That power of converting Janwar  to  Insaan is very much needed in this present world. That is what  human race needs before you you go in to becoming a qualified theologian. As far as this is concerned
    Quote
    They should stick with bringing the claims of religion into the spotlight and leave the idea of god separate (as it should be).

    I think they are doing it pretty well., they are NOT interfering with some metaphysical inquiry some one is exploring about god.. whatevr that god may be., What they are doing is question EXISTING RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES and the preachers of those scriptures.  

    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 #72 - July 06, 2011, 04:02 PM

    Yes, on his support for the largest imperialist military conflict of the 21st century ("The War on Terror"), which at this point has lasted 4 years longer than WWII. I understand that may not be enough evidence for you, but it's more than enough for me.

    [...]

    Snitchens supports wars of imperialist hegemony and conquest that are spilling blood and wrecking lives to make a few wealthy and powerful people wealthier and more powerful-- wars which, in the long run (and often in the short run), will be counterproductive to the goals of liberation and social progress that Snitchens purports are being assisted by these conflicts. That's just too big of an issue for me to get past and focus primarily on the common ground I may have with him.

    [...]

    Actually, although I still consider my statement that supporting imperialists wars means one is pro-imperialist as generally correct, your challenge was great enough that I feel compelled to reformulate it in a more nuanced manner--

    I. In the majority of circumstances support for an imperialist war objectively makes one pro-imperialist even when one subjectively believes otherwise.

    II. So far I see two possible exceptions:

    (A) An individual or group has a material interest in the ends of an imperialist war which is

    (1) morally and materially compelling
    (2) independent of the imperialists' goals
    (3) reasonably believed by the individual or group to only be achievable in the foreseeable future by means of imperialist war

    --e.g. the Libyan rebels and Iraqi exiles/legitimate, progressive resisters to Saddam

    (B) Support for one party to an inter-imperialist war when the person(s) supporting that party reasonably believe the outcome of the other party being victorious would be qualitatively and significantly worse-- e.g. if Nazi Germany and its imperialist Axis partners had defeated their imperialist Allied rivals in WWII.

    Would you consider this to be an acceptable reformulation of my statement?

    I shouldn't really be doing this. I shouldn't even acknowledge the charges of pro-Imperialism until some modicum of evidence has been shown, and shouldn't have to argue the contrary in any serious way until then, no matter how solid your context-less logic reads.

    "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens.

    And simply saying he supports pro-Imperialist agenda isn't evidence. You know this. And everyone in this thread who said it knows it too. In fact, y'all ought to fucking go sit in the naughty corner for being so lazy and annoying.

    I just think it's an unfair assessment from the outset. His views are much more nuanced than the simplistic support for the imbecilic concept of "War on Terror" that you're doing a good job of making it sound like. And it would be foolish to think that everyone who says a thing in support of intervention against a tyrant is saying it as the tip of a less decent iceberg of political agenda, because this, in itself, is something all moral humans must support. I think we have lost track of that. In all this surface-deep political rhetoric, good ideas and noble causes get twisted and used and abused, until they become the warcry of equivalent enemies. This also is the value of men like Hitchens, because he has the balls to confront injustices on both sides, and promote justices on both sides, which is something we all ought to aspire to do. And he has the balls to do it publicly, to whoever is put in front of him - reporter, politician, statesman, cardinal, imam, rabbi, Joe Bloggs on the street - whoever. You don't have to agree completely with everything he says to appreciate his worth as a man.

    You can describe him as a contrarian, or that he is selective in his outrage, or that he hasn't spoken about X situation yet, or was slow to react to X, and quick to jump on X, but these are weak arguments. Red herrings. I don't know who one would expect to convince with those. I just presume those who throw out such platitudes and predictable inanity simply likes the neat clicky sound their keyboard makes.

    I am not even slightly convinced he is pro-Imperialism, and totally convinced he is anti-Imperialism. To me, it doesn't seem like his worldview is pro-Imperialism. And by your own standards, it would be daft to ignore his broader worldview because you perhaps found one particular thing he has said about one particular issue, a thing that might have parallels with other agendas, or support the means to an end, but have a very different end in mind. Or because some people willing to employ such means, and bring about an end, but also have other ends in mind, this somehow implicitly means that one has a stake in those other ends. It doesn't follow.

    There is not a single thing I can think of that he has said that is pro-Imperialist. Support for action, or an intervention, that also other people can wedge a pro-Imperial investment in, does not make one pro-Imperialist. It simply doesn't. No amount of appeal to dead civilians, dead soldiers, economic meltdown, financial terrorism, greedy dealings and opportunism, dirty grubby money changing, capitalist conquest, changes this fact: there were right and wrong reasons for intervention in Iraq. No amount of leading to this example or that example, this country or that country, this atrocity or that atrocity, changes this fact: Iraq was a unique problem for the world to address. This has not changed just because the country is fucked it up beyond all recognition. Or because another country is fucked it up beyond all recognition. And one has to actually have wanted all of that to happen in order to have wanted all of that to happen.

    I'm just wondering what article to quote, or for what reason, but what do you think of this one: Machiavelli in Mesopotamia

    "Taking the points in order, it's fairly easy to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy's bad guy. He's not just bad in himself but the cause of badness in others. While he survives not only are the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples compelled to live in misery and fear (the sheerly moral case for regime-change is unimpeachable on its own), but their neighbors are compelled to live in fear as well.

    However—and here is the clinching and obvious point—Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion. It has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Like the Ceausescu edifice in Romania, it is a pyramid balanced on its apex (its powerbase a minority of the Sunni minority), and when it falls, all the consequences of a post-Saddam Iraq will be with us anyway. To suggest that these consequences—Sunni-Shi'a rivalry, conflict over the boundaries of Kurdistan, possible meddling from Turkey or Iran, vertiginous fluctuations in oil prices and production, social chaos—are attributable only to intervention is to be completely blind to the impending reality. The choices are two and only two—to experience these consequences with an American or international presence or to watch them unfold as if they were none of our business."

    Bias is something we all have. There are many people in this world who I simply will not dignify with any measure of appreciation because of the person they are. They might have the most excellent idea in the world, and I wouldn't be able to swallow it without it leaving a nasty taste of dirt in my mouth. And deep down, I know this is probably wrong, but I don't actually give enough of a fuck to worry about it.

    That said, and if that is indeed what you are doing, I think you've sold Hitchens short here, Q-Man.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #73 - July 06, 2011, 05:28 PM

    This would be so much easier if you'd stop posting lengthy and well-thought-out replies and instead simply acknowledge that, as usual, I'm right.

    I'll get to your post later but first I'd appreciate a direct response to this:

    Actually, although I still consider my statement that supporting imperialists wars means one is pro-imperialist as generally correct, your challenge was great enough that I feel compelled to reformulate it in a more nuanced manner--

    I. In the majority of circumstances support for an imperialist war objectively makes one pro-imperialist even when one subjectively believes otherwise.

    II. So far I see two possible exceptions:

    (A) An individual or group has a material interest in the ends of an imperialist war which is

    (1) morally and materially compelling
    (2) independent of the imperialists' goals
    (3) reasonably believed by the individual or group to only be achievable in the foreseeable future by means of imperialist war

    --e.g. the Libyan rebels and Iraqi exiles/legitimate, progressive resisters to Saddam

    (B) Support for one party to an inter-imperialist war when the person(s) supporting that party reasonably believe the outcome of the other party being victorious would be qualitatively and significantly worse-- e.g. if Nazi Germany and its imperialist Axis partners had defeated their imperialist Allied rivals in WWII.

    Would you consider this to be an acceptable reformulation of my statement?


    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #74 - July 06, 2011, 05:44 PM

    Yeah, I'm struggling with the premise. If you said support for any war for your own Imperialist agenda, irregardless of the reasons the war actually started, makes you pro-Imperialist, I'd grant it.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #75 - July 06, 2011, 06:02 PM

    Then we shall continue to be at impasse because I don't agree with that formulation, and according to my formulation I have sufficient evidence to charge Hitchens as being pro-imperialist.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #76 - July 06, 2011, 07:13 PM

    Then we shall continue to be at impasse because I don't agree with that formulation, and according to my formulation I have sufficient evidence to charge Hitchens as being pro-imperialist.

    You are such a character,  you formulate yourself  as having sufficient evidence to charge "YOURSELF AS PRO IMPERIALIST"  ., what can any one do with that??

    Give me other examples of pro-imperialist that you think are similar to Hitchens Raccoon??  how much money did he make by being imperialist?/ 

    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 #77 - July 06, 2011, 07:15 PM

    @Q

    Do you happen to know why Hitchens was in favour of invasion of Iraq in 2003? I do.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #78 - July 06, 2011, 07:22 PM

    @Q

    Do you happen to know why Hitchens was in favour of invasion of Iraq in 2003? I do.


    Hmmm! That's interesting! You have made me very curious, so please let us know!



    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #79 - July 06, 2011, 07:29 PM

    @Q

    Do you happen to know why Hitchens was in favour of invasion of Iraq in 2003? I do.


    Shoot.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #80 - July 06, 2011, 07:37 PM

    Kurds.

    Hitchens sympathies vis-a-vis PKK and his support for Kurdish self-determination are well know and well documented.
    Hitchens argument for war in Iraq basically is that Iraqis are the victims of Saddam and they will be glad to be rid of him. American occupation no matter how problematic is preferable compared to than what they had to endure under Saddam. Turns out he was right in his analysis insofar as the Kurdish part of Iraq is concerned. The situation in that part is a lot better compared to what the situation was when Saddam was still in power.



  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #81 - July 06, 2011, 07:44 PM

    Hitchens is a complex character and by no means can he be considered a neocon.

    Zizek (the most important contemporary cultural critic, a radical Marxist and a vociferous critic/opponent of Iraq war) and Hitchens are close friends. This is what Zizek had to say about Hitchens: 

    I infinitely prefer him to standard liberal-leftist anti-American ‘pacifism.’ Hitchens is an adversary worth reading – in contrast to many critics of the war on Iraq, who are much better ignored.
    A Leninist, like a Conservative, is authentic in the sense of fully assuming the consequences of his choice, i.e. of being fully aware of what it actually means to take power and to exert it.
    Thus, where Hitchens recognises that any authentic political judgement will bloody one’s hands, the anti-war movement is enslaved to the fantasy of its own political innocence.
    Such a fantasy harbours more than a little unacknowledged violence of its own.

    from Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #82 - July 06, 2011, 07:47 PM

    Kurds.

    Hitchens sympathies vis-a-vis PKK and his support for Kurdish self-determination are well know and well documented.
    Hitchens argument for war in Iraq basically is that Iraqis are the victims of Saddam and they will be glad to be rid of him. American occupation no matter how problematic is preferable compared to than what they had to endure under Saddam. Turns out he was right in his analysis insofar as the Kurdish part of Iraq is concerned. The situation in that part is a lot better compared to what the situation was when Saddam was still in power.






    Yeah but the situation for women, christians, palestinian refugees and others is far worse now and most of it is STATE discrimination. The US should have backed a non-sectarian politicians like Ayad Allawi instead of backing sectarian shia islamist fucktards like the current regime--the very people who were once called "terrorists" for blowing up a US embassy  Roll Eyes No doubt Saddam was a cunt but he wasn't the only one, going after one dictator (or two now if you count ghaddafi) doesn't make up for backing other dictators.

    And doesn't hitchens claim that Al-Qaeda was present in Iraq?
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #83 - July 06, 2011, 07:49 PM

    Quote
    @Q

    Do you happen to know why Hitchens was in favour of invasion of Iraq in 2003? I do.

    Shoot.


    shoot is a good answer Raccoon ??

    Raccoon, Forget Kurds and Shias in Iraq.,   but How about Saddam invasion of Kuwait,  Are you in favor of Saddam the hero invading Kuwait  ?

    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 #84 - July 06, 2011, 07:57 PM

    Yeah but the situation for women, christians, palestinian refugees and others is far worse now and most of it is STATE discrimination. The US should have backed a non-sectarian politicians like Ayad Allawi instead of backing sectarian shia islamist fucktards like the current regime--the very people who were once called "terrorists" for blowing up a US embassy  Roll Eyes No doubt Saddam was a cunt but he wasn't the only one, going after one dictator (or two now if you count ghaddafi) doesn't make up for backing other dictators.

    I am not trying to justify or even to explain the (nearly) complete failure of retarded and short-sighted US policy in Iraq. I was simply trying to explain specifically why Hitchens was in favour of invasion of Iraq.

    And doesn't hitchens claim that Al-Qaeda was present in Iraq?

    Afik there were at least some Al-Qaeda backed insurgents fighting in Iraq after the invasion and afaik that is what Hitchens was claiming. At least that is what I read in a few of his articles in Slate.

    Not sure if you are suggesting that he claimed that Al-Qaeda was active in Iraq or even Saddam's ally prior to invasion like it was implied by Bush administration?

  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #85 - July 06, 2011, 07:58 PM

    Why don't we listen what Hitchens says on these wars ..  

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YCsvb-BXVo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL51xyV9XiI

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

    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 #86 - July 06, 2011, 08:00 PM

    Wasn't just the Kurds and Hitchens has said that he basically supports the foreign policy of the neocons. He may not be a neocon himself, but someone so closely aligned with the neocons on foreign policy issues is objectively pro-imperialist in my book, regardless of his subjective reasoning (see my formulation to Ishina above).

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #87 - July 06, 2011, 08:03 PM

    Wasn't just the Kurds and Hitchens has said that he basically supports the foreign policy of the neocons. He may not be a neocon himself, but someone so closely aligned with the neocons on foreign policy issues is objectively pro-imperialist in my book, regardless of his subjective reasoning (see my formulation to Ishina above).

    Who is your present socialist political hero Raccoon?  George Galloway  the cat??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqeZa_Pf3E??

    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 #88 - July 06, 2011, 08:41 PM

    Wasn't just the Kurds and Hitchens has said that he basically supports the foreign policy of the neocons. He may not be a neocon himself, but someone so closely aligned with the neocons on foreign policy issues is objectively pro-imperialist in my book, regardless of his subjective reasoning (see my formulation to Ishina above).

    My interpretation of Hitchens stance is that he saw neocons as his temporary allies. That was neither wise nor fruitful but in itself such stance is imo not enough to classify somebody as being authentically pro-imperialist.

    It is perfectly possible that my views on Hitchens are wrong however Zizek in his books and articles often criticises Hitchens regardless of the fact that they are friends but he never criticized Hitchens on account of Hitchens alleged pro-imperialism.
    I am not sure if you are at all familiar with Zizek's work but the guy is a brilliant thinker/philosopher/psychoanalyst (The Guardian called him 'The most dangerous philosopher in the West') and as a radical leftist and Marxist he wouldn't touch anybody he would consider pro-imperialist with a stick let alone be friends with such a person. The fact that they are close friends and that Zizek considers Hitchens to be an ally in the progressive struggle regardless of the fact that they are sort of adversaries gives me some confidence that my interpretation of Hitchens stance is not completely baseless.
  • Re: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....
     Reply #89 - July 06, 2011, 10:01 PM

    Afik there were at least some Al-Qaeda backed insurgents fighting in Iraq after the invasion and afaik that is what Hitchens was claiming. At least that is what I read in a few of his articles in Slate.

    Not sure if you are suggesting that he claimed that Al-Qaeda was active in Iraq or even Saddam's ally prior to invasion like it was implied by Bush administration?




    I think I saw a video of him once saying there were al-qaeda fighters present in Iraq before the invasion--that wouldn't be false, there were kurdish Islamists groups that had links to al-qaeda or at the very least had a similar ideology but that isn't still a reason to attack Iraq. No-one can change the past but its important that such farces that cost thousands of lives (most happen to be people that never had their opinions heard) never happens again and I don't think hitchens has learnt any lessons from Iraq:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n-STlCzn8s

    So he can fuck off, as far as I'm concerned.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »