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


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 09:24 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 02:58 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:14 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 09:49 AM

Sos
July 04, 2020, 12:10 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
July 01, 2020, 03:33 PM

BLM and Black Ex-Muslims
July 01, 2020, 12:01 AM

The essence of the facts
June 30, 2020, 01:22 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 30, 2020, 01:14 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 28, 2020, 10:36 AM

Hi there
June 28, 2020, 10:25 AM

Glasgow stabbings
June 26, 2020, 01:48 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: More Hitchens tribute!

 (Read 2377 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
     
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »