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


NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 04:33 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 02:42 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
January 16, 2021, 10:56 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
January 16, 2021, 02:11 PM

Reading stabbings
January 15, 2021, 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
January 15, 2021, 12:20 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: More Hitchens tribute!

 (Read 2984 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     OP - April 17, 2012, 06:55 PM

    This time from Global Atheist Convention:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iR0GyYaeI-k

    - How much longer you gonna do this? - Till I drop.


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

    - John Keats
  • Re: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #1 - April 17, 2012, 07:12 PM

    let me add this to that..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_R68EGbGx4&feature=related



    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: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #2 - April 17, 2012, 07:22 PM



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhTKs3f9bw


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY

    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: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #3 - April 18, 2012, 05:46 PM



    Snitch eulogizing fellow snitch.  grin12

    fuck you
  • Re: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #4 - April 18, 2012, 06:03 PM

    Snitch eulogizing fellow snitch.  grin12



    Hitchens at a work camp for young revolutionaries in Cuba, 1968. Only a few months after Che Guevara died, Hitchens ventured there to work at the Campamento Cinco de Mayo




    Christopher Hitchens-FBI-File  1970






    Christopher Hitchens  with Kurdish fighters in Iraq, 1991.


    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: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #5 - April 18, 2012, 06:08 PM

    Hitchens did some good work in his time, so did Al Sharpton. Doesn't change the fact that both are snitches.

    fuck you
  • Re: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #6 - April 18, 2012, 06:41 PM

    Snitches?  I'm curious how

    "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: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #7 - April 18, 2012, 07:52 PM

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990211&slug=2943737

    http://www.counterpunch.org/1999/06/15/hitch-the-snitch/

    http://omasiali.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/al-sharpton-is-a-fbi-informant-a-snitch-tried-2-bust-tupacs-mom/

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62127609/Al-Sharpton-Exposed-as-an-FBI-Informant

    fuck you
  • Re: More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #8 - April 22, 2012, 04:28 PM

    I dont know if it has been posted (?). But anyways here is the first part of Vanity Fairs Memorial to Christopher Hitchens:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/video/2012/04/1575484150001

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

    - John Keats
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #9 - January 19, 2016, 06:39 PM

    Damn  I miss Christopher Hitchens

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTkrRoiQyE

    god is fucking great ... thanks for the internet god 

    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
     
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #10 - March 19, 2020, 08:40 AM

    Dammit  I miss Hitchens ... so I watch his debates now and then .. Thank you internet god for keeping alive the voice of one of the greatest minds of 20th/21st century interface...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

    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
     
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #11 - March 21, 2020, 10:39 PM

    Aren't you naturally suspicious of someone who has a clever turn of phrase?  If you reversed their places, I'm sure hitchens would have made a good case for abrahamic nonsense. Charisma is a warning sign.
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #12 - June 11, 2020, 05:12 AM

    Londonistan Calling

    Quote
    They say that the past is another country, but let me tell you that it's much more unsettling to find that the present has become another country, too. In my lost youth I lived in Finsbury Park, a shabby area of North London, roughly between the old Arsenal football ground and the Seven Sisters Road. It was a working-class neighborhood, with a good number of Irish and Cypriot immigrants. Your food choices were the inevitable fish-and-chips, plus the curry joint, plus a strong pitch from the Greek and Turkish kebab sellers. There was never much "bother," as the British say, in Finsbury Park. Greeks and Turks might be fighting in Cyprus, but they never lifted a hand to one another in London. Many of the Irish had republican allegiances, but they didn't take that out on the local Protestants. And, even though both Cyprus and Ireland had all the grievances of partitioned former British colonies, it would have seemed inconceivable—unimaginable—that any of their sons would put a bomb on the bus their neighbors used.


    Returning to the old place after a long absence, I found that it was the scent of Algeria that now predominated along the main thoroughfare of Blackstock Road. This had had a good effect on the quality of the coffee and the spiciness of the grocery stores. But it felt odd, under the gray skies of London, to see women wearing the veil, and even swathed in the chador or the all-enveloping burka. Many of these Algerians, Bangladeshis, and others are also refugees from conflict in their own country. Indeed, they have often been the losers in battles against Middle Eastern and Asian regimes which they regard as insufficiently Islamic. Quite unlike the Irish and the Cypriots, they bring these far-off quarrels along with them. And they also bring a religion which is not ashamed to speak of conquest and violence.

    Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque's sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London's transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.


    In fact, the British jihadist is becoming quite a feature on the international scene. In 1998, six British citizens of Pakistani and North African descent along with two other British residents were arrested by the government of Yemen and convicted of planning to kidnap a group of tourists and attack British targets in the port of Aden (scene of the near-sinking of the U.S.S. Cole two years later). One of the youths was the son of the tireless Abu Hamza, and another was his stepson. In December 2001, Richard Reid made his bid on the Paris–Miami flight. By then, two or three Britons had been killed in Afghanistan—fighting on the side of the Taliban. The following year came the video butchering of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, whose abduction and murder were organized by another Briton—a former student at the London School of Economics—named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. And the year after that, two British-passport holders, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, took part in a suicide attack on Mike's Place, a Tel Aviv bar.

    The British have always been proud of their tradition of hospitality and asylum, which has benefited Huguenots escaping persecution, European Jewry, and many political dissidents from Marx to Mazzini. But the appellation "Londonistan," which apparently originated with a sarcastic remark by a French intelligence officer, has come to describe a city which became home to people wanted for terrorist crimes as far afield as Cairo and Karachi. The capital of the United Kingdom is, in the words of Steven Simon, a former White House counterterrorism official, "the Star Wars bar scene," catering promiscuously to all manner of Islamist recruiters and fund-raisers for, and actual practitioners of, holy war.


    In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 civilians (including a young Afghan, Atique Sharifi, who had fled to London to escape the Taliban) and injured hundreds more, I found that American television interviewers were all asking me the same question: How can this be? Britain is the country of warm beer and cricket and rain-lashed seaside resorts, not a place of arms for exotic and morbid cults. British press coverage struck the same plaintive note. One of the murderers, Shehzad Tanweer, was a cricket enthusiast from Leeds, in Yorkshire, whose family ran a fish-and-chips shop. You can't get much more assimilated than that. Yet Britain's former head of domestic intelligence, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller (and you can't get much more British than that, either), said last year that there are more than "1,600 identified individuals" within the borders of the kingdom who are ready to follow Tanweer's example (including those in whose honor we now all have to part with our liquids and gels at the airport). And, according to Manningham-Buller, "over 100,000 of our citizens consider the July 2005 attacks in London justified."

    I told those who were interviewing me to go back and review the 1997 film of Hanif Kureishi's brilliant short story "My Son the Fanatic," and then to reread Monica Ali's 2003 novel, Brick Lane. The film is set in a dilapidated Yorkshire mill town very like the ones that spawned the 7/7 bombers, and the book is named for an area of East London that is now mainly Bengali and Muslim but has been home to successive waves of Huguenot and Jewish immigration. I remember leaving the cinema after seeing My Son the Fanatic, and feeling a heavy sense of depression, along with a strong premonition of trouble to come. In the figures of Parvez, the Pakistani cabdriver, and his morose son, Farid, Kureishi had captured the generational essence of the problem. In the 1960s, many Asians moved to Britain in quest of employment and education. They worked hard, were law-abiding, and spent much of their time combating prejudice. Their mosques were more like social centers. But their children, now grown, are frequently contemptuous of what they see as their parents' passivity. Often stirred by Internet accounts of jihadists in faraway countries like Chechnya or Kashmir, they perhaps also feel the urge to prove that they have not "sold out" by living in the comfortable, consumerist West. A recent poll by the Policy Exchange think tank captures the problem in one finding: 59 percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under British law rather than Shari'a; 28 percent would choose Shari'a. But among those 55 and older, only 17 percent prefer Shari'a, whereas in the 16-to-24 age group the figure rises to 37 percent. Almost exactly the same proportions apply when the question is whether or not a Muslim who converts to another faith should be put to death …

    ‘They remind me of the 60s revolutionaries in some ways," said Hanif Kureishi as we sat in one of London's finest Indian restaurants. "A lot of romantic talk, but a hard-core faction who will actually volunteer to go to training camps." Making a rather sharp distinction between the new young fundamentalists and the 1960s rebels, he added that he had never met a jihadist who wasn't militantly anti-Semitic. Monica Ali, whose lovely novel also emphasizes the generational divide and captures the Third World–type pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, independently told me the same thing. She had seen British television cave in to extremists who did not want her book made into a film, and who threatened trouble if the cameras were brought to the East End, but this did not alarm her as much as "the way that hatred of the Jews has become absolutely standard, all across the community."

    It's interesting that it should be authors from Muslim backgrounds—Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, the broadcaster and co-author of the Policy Exchange report Munira Mirza—who are issuing the warnings. For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias—or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term "Islamophobia"—in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment. Prince Charles himself, the heir to the throne and thus the heir to the headship of the Church of England, has announced his sympathy for Islam and his wish to be the head of all faiths and not just one. This may sound good, if absurd (a chinless prince who becomes head of a church because his mother dies?), but only if you forget that it was Prince Charles who encouraged the late King Fahd, of Saudi Arabia, to contribute more than a million pounds to build … the Finsbury Park Mosque! If you want my opinion, our old district was a lot better off when the crowned heads of the world were busy neglecting it.


    Anyway, you can't be multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews, Britain's oldest and most successful (and most consistently anti-racist) minority. And you can't be multicultural and preach equally homicidal hatred of India, Britain's most important ally and friend after the United States. My colleague Henry Porter sat me down in his West London home and made me watch a documentary that he thought had received far too little attention when shown on Britain's Channel 4. It is entitled Undercover Mosque, and it shows film shot in quite mainstream Islamic centers in Birmingham and London (you can now find it easily on the Internet). And there it all is: foaming, bearded preachers calling for crucifixion of unbelievers, for homosexuals to be thrown off mountaintops, for disobedient and "deficient" women to be beaten into submission, and for Jewish and Indian property and life to be destroyed. "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews, you kill them physically," as one sermonizer, calling himself Sheikh al-Faisal, so prettily puts it. This stuff is being inculcated in small children—who are also informed that the age of consent should be nine years old, in honor of the prophet Muhammad's youngest spouse. Again, these were not tin-roof storefront mosques but well-appointed and well-attended places of worship, often the beneficiaries of Saudi Arabian largesse. It's not just the mosques, either. In West London there is a school named for Prince Charles's friend King Fahd, with 650 pupils, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia. According to Colin Cook, a British convert to Islam (initially inspired by the former crooner Cat Stevens) who taught there for 19 years, teaching materials said that Jews "engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan," and incited pupils to list the defects of worthless heresies such as Judaism and Christianity.

    What this shows is the utter futility of the soft-centered explanations of the 7/7 bombings and other outrages. It was argued for a while that the 7/7 perpetrators were victims of unemployment and poverty, until their remains were identified and it became clear that most of them came from educated and reasonably well-off backgrounds. The excuses then abruptly switched, and we were asked to believe that it was Tony Blair's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that motivated the killers. Suppose the latter to be true. It would still be the case that they belong to a movement that hates Jews and Indians and all kuffar, or "unbelievers": a fanatical sect that believes itself entitled to use deadly violence at any time. The roots of violence, that is to say, are in the preaching of it, and the sanctification of it.

    If anything, Tony Blair is far too indulgent to this phenomenon. It is his policy of encouraging "faith schools" that has written sectarianism into the very fabric of British life. A non-Muslim child who lives in a Muslim-majority area may now find herself attending a school that requires headscarves. The idea of separate schools for separate faiths—the idea that worked so beautifully in Northern Ireland—has meant that children are encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to a distinct religious "community" rather than a nation. As Undercover Mosque also shows, Blair's government has appeased leading Muslim apologists by inviting them to join "commissions" to investigate the 7/7 attacks, and thus awarding them credibility well beyond their deserts. A preposterous and sinister individual named Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain and a man with a public record of support for Osama bin Laden, was made a convener of Blair's task force on extremism despite his stated belief that the BBC and the rest of the media are "Zionist controlled."


    It's impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie's death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate. But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority. But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?" A question that will have to be answered one way or another.


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/06/hitchens200706
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #13 - June 11, 2020, 05:26 AM

    Fanatics of London (corresponding Q&A with Walter Owen

    Quote
    In "Londonistan Calling," Christopher Hitchens writes about the growth of Islamic extremism in his old London neighborhood of Finsbury Park. Citing Islamic preachers as a root cause, Hitchens is troubled by Britain's tolerance of extremist rhetoric, which he says is founded in "the multicultural idea of the multi-ethnic, gorgeous-mosaic ideal." Not that he's totally opposed to multiculturalism. In this Web exclusive, Hitchens tackles … well, just about everything.

    Melanie Phillips, who wrote a book called Londonistan, says multiculturalism is destructive to British values. Do you agree?

    No, I'm in favor of multiculturalism. I'm defending it against the hideous challenge from political Islam. As I say in the article, you cannot defend multiculturalism and also have people who want to kill all the Jews and Indians in the country. I would have thought that would be axiomatic for a multiculturalist. The official multiculturalists, whose view is that you mustn't make distinctions between cultures, would thus be uneasy making the simple point I've just made. If Melanie means them, I think I know who they are.

    Who are they?

    Well, people like Mr. Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, now a convener of Blair's task force on extremism, a man who publicly supported Osama bin Laden. But multiculturalism makes room for just such people.


    I don't want to concede that at all. I think it is surely much more positive to say that multiculturalism must be defended from what is really a racist fanaticism. The objection of these people is not really to Judaism, or even to Zionism. It's anti-Semitism pure and simple. The other name for which is racism, of the deadliest kind because it's accompanied by a direct incitement to murder. Not just discrimination, but murder. If someone can tell me how that can be squared with multiculturalism, I'll do all the listening that I feel I have to. But not much.

    Were you concerned about Britain's lax approach to extremist demagoguery such as Hamza's before July 7, 2005?

    For me it's a fairly old story. It begins Valentine's Day, 1989, the day that the fatwa was issued against my friend Salman [Rushdie] for the crime of publishing a novel in London. The fatwa was not for apostasy only; it was for insulting the Prophet and his family. But it was applied to him because he was a Muslim. If I published a novel saying the prophet Muhammad stinks it's unlikely that even the mad old ayatollah, looking for an issue, as he was, having just lost the war with Iraq, would have taken any notice of it. Up till now it's a matter of, Well, he's an infidel. He wouldn't know any better. But you're talking about Iran.

    What about Britain's fundamentalists?

    Well, here's the situation. Salman's fatwa was a pretty clear challenge to the rule of law and to free expression in England. A novelist can't publish a novel without being subjected to an open, suborned-for-money murder, a bounty put on his head by the theocratic leader of a foreign state of which he was not a citizen. You would think everyone would react in the same way. You'd be wrong. For one thing, a whole load of lumpen intellectuals said that the fault was with Salman for writing the novel, not with the ayatollah for issuing an offer of money for murder.

    Any names?

    Yeah. Hugh Trevor-Roper. John Berger. But, bad as that was, it wasn't as upsetting as it was to see really quite large demonstrations in Bradford, and similar places in the North of England, and in London, burning the book, and calling for the death of the author. I'd had stirrings of alarm about this before. When it happened, I remember thinking I knew something like this was going to happen. But it was very abrupt, and on a scale that surprised most people. There were quite senior people occupying responsible positions in the Muslim community who actually publicly supported the ayatollah's call for Salman to be killed. Even though the authority of an Iranian Shia ayatollah over them seems to me very problematic. They seemed to regard themselves as bound by his fatwa. I became then, and have remained, very involved in the defense of Mr. Rushdie, and I would say there really hasn't been a day in my life since then where some aspect of the Islamic challenge hasn't had to come into my mind. I must have been one of the least surprised people on earth on September 11. I felt very braced for that. I knew something like that was going to come. From your story this month, I get the feeling you think extremists such as Abu Hamza, the former Finsbury Park Mosque imam, should not go unnoticed.

    Would you eavesdrop on suspected extremists in Britain?

    You don't have to eavesdrop on someone who gets up in public and says, "Kill the Jews."

    True—

    Someone who's bellowing racism and malice through a megaphone, I don't need to tap his fucking phone. But you might want to tap the phone of the people who are listening to him.

    If the Metropolitan Police are not listening to his phone and the phones of people like him, then they should be impeached and removed from office. I don't think you'd have much difficulty getting that warrant.

    Is the British problem with terrorism different from ours?

    Most of our [British] Muslim population is Pakistani. If that population was Indonesian or Tunisian the situation would not be the same. Pakistan has to export a lot of uneducated people, many of whom have become infected with the most barbaric reactionary ideas. A London police official went on television after the July 7 bombings to say that the words "Islam" and "terrorism" do not go together.

    Is he misunderstanding the threat?

    The reply to this fatuous remark was published in an Arab magazine. It said that it is not true that all Muslims are terrorists, but it is true that almost all terrorists are Muslims. We have to face this problem. Blair is quite firmly convinced that by making concessions on almost every front to Islamist demands, this will reduce the terrorist population. He thinks it's amenable to reason, in other words, and to reform. And I like his mind, in a way. But I doubt it very much. When the soft Blair-ites say the problem is not Islam, or the problem is not religion, I have to say very firmly, "To the contrary. It is an absolutely identical fit between the two."

    Between terror and Islam?

    Yes. Even though the Koran doesn't advise murder and intolerance? Or does it?

    The Koran shows every sign of being thrown together by human beings, as do all the other holy books. I was not there, but I will take my oath that it is not the word of the archangel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad obeying the word of god. And like all the other holy books, the Koran is replete with contradiction and incoherence.

    But incitement to violence?


    One of the very few things on which all those texts are very firm is a continual incitement to violence and intolerance. That's consistent in the Bible and the Koran and the Torah, all of the supposed holy books of the desert monotheisms.

    But only the Muslims have responded with violence in recent times.

    No, I would certainly not say that was true. The armed settlers on the West Bank. The people who blow up abortion clinics in the U.S. They believe they don't just have divine permission. They believe they had divine mandate. And it's not possible to say holy books don't tell them that. It's not.

    Does the British government's P.C.-ness hurt the efforts of moderate Muslims to temper extremism?

    Yes, it does, because the granting of audiences and positions to people like Mr. Bunglawala makes the assumption that he's in some way a spokesman, a claim I don't think he could easily prove. It certainly shouldn't be granted.

    How does that have an impact on moderate Muslims?

    It means that they find, to their annoyance, that the most extreme elements in their community are being recognized as interlocutors instead of themselves. I've heard a lot of secular Pakistanis complain that the cops, when they think we better go talk to the community, walk straight past them and head for the imam at the mosque, assuming that he's the one they want to talk to. Which means, of course, pretty soon these are the people who'll be handing out the welfare payments. They'll become the go-to people. Because they'll have a grant from the taxpayers, and they'll be the administrators of it. They will become the reps. It's a big, big mistake. We're going to regret it hugely.

    Did you know that St. Paul's Cathedral almost invited the families of the bombers to memorial services for the victims?

    No. But nothing about the utter fatuity of the Church of England would surprise me. The Church of England supported the fatwa on Salman. In common with the Vatican and the Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, they all said the problem was not the offering of money for murder. The problem was blasphemy. They unanimously said that. Well, perfect for me. That's what I thought they thought. Given the choice, which do you think is worse, aids or condoms? Condoms. Which do you think is worse, incitement to murder by an insane, senile theocrat offering money in his own name for the killing of a civilian, or a chapter in a novel you haven't read? Obviously the second is worse. There you have it. This is not from extremists. This is from the mainstream.

    Lawrence Wright says in his one-man show, "My Trip to al-Qaeda," that getting along with women is a large part of what civilization is about. He got a knowing laugh for the line, and another when he said that it's difficult to be a terrorist if your girlfriend doesn't want you to be one.


    They won't have girlfriends, these poor saps. If you look at any Muslim society and you make a scale of how developed they are, and how successful the economy is, it's a straight line. It depends on how much they emancipate their women. It's as simple as that. It is no surprise societies such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan stagnate. And then, not content with stagnating, and imploding, want to export the resulting violence and blame it on a crusader-Zionist conspiracy. This is why the situation that this creates is unbelievably dangerous. Very menacing. Very frightening situation. Because it's self-sustaining. You try and run a society out of the Koran, as the Taliban do … well, everything collapses. The whole society goes into a free fall. And are they going to blame this on their ideology? Of course not. Susan Sontag wrote that September 11 occurred "as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions."

    Do you think Israel's fight against Muslim fundamentalism is the West's fight?

    No. I never have because those who live under Israeli rule have not put themselves there of their own free will. But they're not the ones I'm talking about.

    What about the fight against Hezbollah?

    You could say the idea of the corrupt and fanatical theocracy in Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is something that doesn't admit of any discrimination. It's a threat to everybody. Including the people of Iran. It would be petty to say it's a threat to Jews.

    Well, let's be petty on the level of Hezbollah. Is the fight against Hezbollah what's coming for us? Is Hezbollah conducting itself against Israel the way—

    The leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the sheik Nasrallah, has said, "Let's get this bit out of the way. We're not looking for concessions from the West. We want your concept of civilization to be over. We want to destroy it, and replace it with ours." He doesn't have the power to make this happen. But he does have the desire to do so, and I think he's earned the right to be taken seriously.

    Then you do think it's the same fight. That's al-Qaeda's mandate.


    No. Not at all. This would be the case if Israel was there or not.

    Yes, but Israel is there, and it is fighting that fight.

    It's a different one. The United States is not occupying any of the territory of southern Lebanon.

    Neither is Israel.

    Not now. But there was no Hezbollah either, until it did. It's a quite separate question, the way that Israel conducts itself. If Israel wants it to be the case that its struggle is identical with ours, it would have been better off not having taken the actions that it did in Lebanon without telling anyone it was going to do so. Speaking, as it were, for us while not in fact having been granted that permission.

    Do you agree with Sontag that the September 11 attacks were a consequence of American actions and alliances?

    No. I got her to somewhat take it back, in an interview in Salon. She was much criticized in public, and much criticized by me in private. She made a statement in Salon crediting me with making her see that the real threat was Islamo-Fascism. Their demand is that the world be like them, or live under their rule. Well, I resist this. I decline the offer.

    Is London going to have another attack?

    Of course. Everyone is. No city in the world is not going to have this. It's probably going to be the dominant fact of our future. They will be able to demonstrate with fairly convincing means that there is nowhere that's safe from them. It's coming.


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/06/hitchensqanda200706
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #14 - June 11, 2020, 09:26 AM

    Aren't you naturally suspicious of someone who has a clever turn of phrase?  If you reversed their places, I'm sure hitchens would have made a good case for abrahamic nonsense. Charisma is a warning sign.

      who is that "you"?? me dear crumble?? well let me add some of his quotes here on the way..

    Quote
    “To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?” ― Christopher Hitchens

    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”― Christopher Hitchens

    “Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay.”― Christopher Hitchens

    “Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”― Christopher Hitchens


    well good stuff.. good advice.

    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
     
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #15 - June 11, 2020, 11:57 PM

    Quote from:
    Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake


    well, I can't argue with that.
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #16 - June 13, 2020, 04:57 PM

    well, I can't argue with that.

    Sure you can dear crumble..  you have done that before So what is your opinion on this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q

    I am looking for your arguments dear crumble... and i tell you., i badly miss him and none can replace his sharp tongue and  his terrific background on many different social/political/economical/religious  subjects

    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
     
  • More Hitchens tribute!
     Reply #17 - November 03, 2020, 05:18 PM

    Facing the Islamist Menace by Christopher Hitchens
    Winter 2007
    Quote
    In the prologue to his new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn sarcastically alludes to two people whom, in different ways, I know well. The first is novelist Martin Amis, ridiculed by Steyn for worrying about environmental apocalypse when the threat to civilization is obviously Islamism; the second is Jack Straw, formerly Tony Blair’s foreign secretary, mocked for the soft and conciliatory line he took over the affair of the Danish cartoons. The dazzling fiction writer and the pedestrian social-democratic politician are for Steyn dual exemplars of his book’s main concern: the general apathy and surrender of the West in the face of a determined assault from a religious ideology, or an ideological religion, afflicted by no sickly doubt about what it wants or by any scruples about how to get it.

    I might quibble about Steyn’s assessment—Amis has written brilliantly about Mohammed Atta’s death cult, for example, while Jack Straw made one of the best presentations to the UN of the case for liberating Iraq. But it’s more useful to point out two things that have happened between the writing of this admirably tough-minded book and its publication. Jack Straw, now the leader of the House of Commons, made a speech in his northern English constituency in October, in which he said that he could no longer tolerate Muslim women who came to his office wearing veils. The speech catalyzed a long-postponed debate not just on the veil but on the refusal of assimilation that it symbolizes. It seems to have swung the Labour Party into a much firmer position against what I call one-way multiculturalism. Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed the shift with a December speech emphasizing the “duty” of immigrants to assimilate to British values. And Martin Amis, speaking to the London Times, had this to say:

    There’s a definite urge—don’t you have it?—to say, “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.” What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation—further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan. . . . Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children. . . . They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs—well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.

    I know both of these men to be profoundly humanistic and open-minded. Straw has defended the rights of immigrants all his life and loyally represents a constituency with a large Asian population. Amis has rebuked me several times in print for supporting the intervention in Iraq, the casualties of which have become horrifying to him. Even five years ago, it would have been unthinkable to picture either man making critical comments about Islamic dress, let alone using terms such as “deportation.” Mark Steyn’s book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way.

    The most alarming sentences that I have read in a long time came from the pen of my fellow atheist Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, at the end of a September Los Angeles Times column upbraiding American liberals for their masochistic attitude toward Islamist totalitarianism. Harris concluded:

    The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization [italics mine].

    As Martin Amis said in the essay that prompted Steyn’s contempt: “What is one to do with thoughts like these?” How does one respond, in other words, when an enemy challenges not just your cherished values but additionally forces you to examine the very assumptions that have heretofore seemed to underpin those values?

    Two things, in my experience, disable many liberals at the onset of this conversation. First, they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black- and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the “Third World.” You can see this identification in the way that the Palestinians (about 20 percent of whom were Christian until their numbers began to decline) have become an “Islamic” cause and in the amazing ignorance that most leftists display about India, a multiethnic secular democracy under attack from al-Qaida and its surrogates long before the United States was. And you can see it, too, in the stupid neologism “Islamophobia,” which aims to promote criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with racism.

    The second liberal disability concerns numbers. Any emphasis on the relative birthrates of Muslim and non-Muslim populations falls on the liberal ear like an echo of eugenics. It also upsets one of the most valued achievements of the liberal consensus: the right if not indeed the duty to limit family size to (at most) two children. It was all very well, from this fatuously self-satisfied perspective, for Paul Ehrlich to warn about the human “population bomb” as a whole, just as it is all very well for some “Green” forces to take a neo-Malthusian attitude toward human reproduction in general. But in the liberal mind, to concentrate on the fertility of any one group is to flirt with Nuremberg laws. The same goes for “racial profiling,” even when it’s directed at the adherents of an often ideological religion rather than an ethnic group. The Islamists, meanwhile, have staked everything on fecundity.

    Mark Steyn believes that demography is destiny, and he makes an immensely convincing case. He stations himself at the intersection of two curves. The downward one is the population of developed Europe and Japan, which has slipped or is slipping below what demographers call “replacement,” rapidly producing a situation where the old will far outnumber the young. The upward curve, or curves, represent the much higher birthrate in the Islamic world and among Muslim immigrants to Western societies. Anticipating Harris in a way, Steyn writes:

    Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

    This is a highly reductionist view of the origin and nature of the Bosnian war—it would not account, for example, for Croatian irredentism. But paranoia about population did mutate into Serbian xenophobia and fascism, and a similar consciousness does animate movements like the British National Party and Le Pen’s Front Nationale. (Demographic considerations do not appear to explain the continued addiction of these and similar parties to anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.)

    Nor can there be much doubt that the awareness of demography as a potential weapon originates with the Islamists themselves. Anybody who, like me, has publicly criticized Islamism gets used to the accusation that he has “insulted a billion Muslims.” A vague but definite threat underlies this absurd charge, and in parts of Europe it already intimidates politicians. Gilles Kepel, the French scholar of Islam, once told me that when he lectures in North Africa his listeners often ask how many Muslims live in France. If he replies that he believes the official figures to be mostly correct, scornful laughter erupts. The true figure, his listeners say, is much higher. France is on its way to becoming part of the dar-al-Islam. It is leaving the dar-al-Harb (“House of War”), but without a fight. Steyn has no difficulty producing equally minatory public statements from Islamist triumphalists. And, because his argument is exponential, it creates an impression of something unstoppable.

    Yet Steyn makes the same mistake as did the late Oriana Fallaci: considering European Muslim populations as one. Islam is as fissile as any other religion (as Iraq reminds us). Little binds a Somali to a Turk or an Iranian or an Algerian, and considerable friction exists among immigrant Muslim groups in many European countries. Moreover, many Muslims actually have come to Europe for the advertised purposes—seeking asylum and to build a better life. A young Afghan man, murdered in the assault on the London subway system in July 2005, had fled to England from the Taliban, which had murdered most of his family. Muslim women often demand the protection of the authorities against forced marriage and other cruelties. These are all points of difference, and also of possible resistance to Euro-sharia.

    The main problem in Europe in this context is that many deracinated young Muslim men, inflamed by Internet propaganda from Chechnya or Iraq and aware of their own distance from “the struggle,” now regard the jihadist version of their religion as the “authentic” one. Compounding the problem, Europe’s multicultural authorities, many of its welfare agencies, and many of its churches treat the most militant Muslims as the minority’s “real” spokesmen. As Kenan Malik and others have pointed out in the case of Britain, this mind-set cuts the ground from under the feet of secular Muslims, encouraging the sensation that many in the non-Muslim Establishment have a kind of death wish.

    Steyn cannot seem to make up his mind about the defense of secularism in this struggle. He regards Christianity as a bulwark of civilization and a possible insurance against Islamism. But he cannot resist pointing out that most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another “faith community,” agreeing with them on the need for confessional-based schooling, and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism.

    This is not to deny Steyn’s salient point that demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization. His gift for the illustrative anecdote and the revealing quotation is evident, and if more people have woken up to the Islamist menace since he began writing about it, then the credit is partly his. Muslims in one part of England demand the demolition of an ancient statue of a wild boar, and in another part of England make plots to blow up airports, buses, and subway trains. The two threats are not identical. But they are connected, and Steyn attempts to tease out the filiations with the saving tactic of wit.

    I still think—or should I say hope?—that the sheer operatic insanity of September 11 set back the Islamist project of a “soft” conquest of host countries, Muslim countries included. Up until 9/11, the Talibanization of Pakistan—including the placement of al-Qaida sympathizers within its nuclear program—proceeded fairly smoothly. Official Pakistani support for Muslim gangsters operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India went relatively unpunished. Saudi funds discreetly advanced the Wahhabist program, through madrassa-building and a network of Islamic banking, across the globe. In the West, Muslim demands for greater recognition and special treatment had become an accepted part of the politically correct agenda. Some denounced me as cynical for saying at the time that Osama bin Laden had done us a favor by disclosing the nature and urgency of the Islamist threat, but I still think I was right. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have had to trim their sails a bit. The Taliban will at least never be able to retake power by stealth or as a result of our inattention. Millions have become aware of the danger—including millions of Shi’a Muslims who now see the ideology of bin Laden and Zarqawi as a menace to their survival. Groups and cells that might have gotten away with murder have wound up unmasked and shut down, from Berlin to Casablanca.

    Of course, these have not been the only consequences of September 11 and its aftermath. Islamist suicide-terrorism has mutated into new shapes and adopted fresh grievances as a result of the mobilization against it. Liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself for the attack upon it. But at least the long period of somnambulism is over, and the opportunity now exists for antibodies to form against the infection.

    Steyn ends his book with a somewhat slapdash ten-point program for resistance to Islamism, which includes offhand one-line items such as “End the Iranian regime” and more elaborate proposals to get rid of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Authority, and (for some reason) NATO. His tenth point (“Strike militarily when the opportunity presents itself”) is barely even a makeweight to bring the figure up to ten.

    Steyn is much more definite about the cultural side of his argument, in other words, than about the counterterrorist dimension. If I wanted to sharpen both prongs of his thesis, I would also propose the following:

    Quote
    Point 1. ............An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

    Point  2................ A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

    Point   3.................. A similarly forward approach to Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, and the other countries of Western Africa that are under attack by jihadists and are also the location of vast potential oil reserves, whose proper development could help emancipate the local populations from poverty and ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

    Point  4. ..............A declaration at the UN of our solidarity with the right of the Kurdish people of Iraq and elsewhere to self-determination as well as a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned. Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.

    Point  5................... Energetic support for all the opposition forces in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora. A public offer from the United States, disseminated widely in the Persian language, of help for a reformed Iran on all matters, including peaceful nuclear energy, and of assistance in protecting Iran from the catastrophic earthquake that seismologists predict in its immediate future. Millions of lives might be lost in a few moments, and we would also have to worry about the fate of secret underground nuclear facilities. When a quake leveled the Iranian city of Bam three years ago, the performance of American rescue teams was so impressive that their popularity embarrassed the regime. Iran’s neighbors would need to pay attention, too: a crisis in Iran’s nuclear underground facilities—an Iranian Chernobyl—would not be an internal affair. These concerns might help shift the currently ossified terms of the argument and put us again on the side of an internal reform movement within Iran and its large and talented diaspora.

    Point  6............. Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.

    Point  7. .............A commitment to buy Afghanistan’s opium crop and to keep the profits out of the hands of the warlords and Talibanists, until such time as the country’s agriculture— especially its once-famous vines—has been replanted and restored. We can use the product in the interim for the manufacture of much-needed analgesics for our own market and apply the profits to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

    Point  8. ............We should, of course, be scrupulous on principle about stirring up interethnic tensions. But we should remind those states that are less scrupulous—Iran, Pakistan, and Syria swiftly come to mind—that we know that they, too, have restless minorities and that they should not make trouble in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Iraq without bearing this in mind. Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of “Islamic solidarity.” Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then–foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements—such as the Baluchis—within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.
    Quote
    When I read Sam Harris’s irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: “Not while I’m alive, they won’t.” Nor do I wish to concede that Serbo-fascist ethnic cleansing can appear more rational in retrospect than it did at the time. The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders

    .

    That is what Christopher Hitchens wrote some 13 years ago....


    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
     
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »