Hitchens, as always, is entertaining and eloquent. Good sift!

True, but I still disagree with him on this point.

To say it's only religion which causes these fundamentalist muslims to rise up is silly. Religion may be a fuel of sorts and a unifying element but I'm sure the initial ignition or spark was caused somewhere else.

I'm an athiest as well and I don't Hitchens telling me I need to go on some Athiestic Jihad because violence is all they will understand.

I still respect him for voicing out against religion however.

I'm an athiest as well and I don't Hitchens telling me I need to go on some Athiestic Jihad because violence is all they will understand.

I think you misunderstand Hitchen's point to some extent. He is not talking about starting an Atheistic jihad, but on countering an Islamic one. He never said violence is all that they understand, he just made clear what the alternative is. We either allow them to throw acid in the faces of girls who dare attend school, or they will use violence against us. If we choose to stop them from throwing that acid, then we must be prepared for the violence that THEY will bring to us as a result.

An even clearer indication of his goals and the fight he is calling for is made clear by his allies in his fight. The Islamic leadership of the Iraqi Kurd's are one of the staunchest fighters against Islamic extremism in the region. When it is the moderate Islamic people that are the ones fighting the war agains these jihadists in both Iraq and Paksitan that should tell us something about the nature of the fight.

Hitchens' has summed this up quite clearly before as not a war with Islam, but a war within Islam.

Islamic acid attackson women (NSFW) really are one of the grossest things in the world.

Folks of the same religion as those attackers should really make sure they're first in line to speak out about it.

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

Oh man, the more I hear from Hitchens the more I like him. He argues so eloquently that it actually makes my opinion seem worthless in comparison. I feel like a bit of a sheep. Yes Mr Hitchens, you are right, forget I ever said anything.

"Islamic fundamentalist apologist"?!
Are you f*cking kidding me?

P.S
When I meet Mr. Hitchens I'll be sure to ask him when he became a populist cunt.

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.

Hitchens's arrogance is mind blowing.
Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?

He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

We should know better is my point.

The first guy had it right. Islamic "terrorism" is a predictable outcome of the west fucking with the autonomy of other nations. In fact military and political strategists are planning for an increase in such attacks as the engine of globalisation warms up and the great un-washed, un-moneyed masses of the world become increasingly marginalised from society.

Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable

I feel both sides have very valid points, and I can often see myself moving between the two. The fine line they are arguing over is important, and worth arguing. I feel it is an issue of chicken or the egg. The reality is that both evolved simultaneously; western intervention and religious fundamentalism. We need share education with Islamic communities not bombs and hold everyone responsible for human rights violations.

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.


How ignorant are you? Hitchens never excused western abuses, he pointed back to the fact he wrote a, if not THE, book on it with 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. He never excused the west, but once again renewed his condemnation and calls for war crimes prosecution of those responsible. What video where you watching exactly????


Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?


I must repeat, what video were you watching? Hitchens never even vaguely suggested that the western turn around thirty years later justified anything. What he stated was that Al-Qaida's stated reasons for hating the west included not the East Timor genocide, but the act of ENDING their support for it.


He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

And yet again, which video did you watch? Hitchens condemned villians of both the west AND the fundamentalists. Unbelievable...

"Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable."

Thanks for bringing such sophisticated intellectualism to the conversation.

BTW, I hate to rain on the parade of bigots, but you know he's not from the states, right?

He's one of the few who successfully argues against my point of view who does so from a position clearly more educated than I. He always makes me stop and think. Good sift.

>> ^chilaxe:
"Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable."
Thanks for bringing such sophisticated intellectualism to the conversation.
BTW, I hate to rain on the parade of bigots, but you know he's not from the states, right?


So was that the only thing about Hitchens I got wrong? He's still a fat, rich, pompous git who advocates war against Iran right?

Anyway, just trying to inject some debate into the comments section. Looks like it worked.

I'm sorry, but i'm not sure how this was ownage. I was rather dissapointed not only in the language he used but his points, particularly becuase i'm usually impressed by his oratory skills.

a) the starting part was so fox news'esque, simply belittle someone else who has an opinion different than yours. Making fun and calling them names, instead of discussing the issues.

b) I understand he is well spoken, but his points can be weak someones. I mean for him to overlook reasons 1 and 2 (which is the meat of the questioner's question) and look at reason 3 (as claimed by hitchens) for osama to hate the west. Just logically think about this, if i hate you becuase you kill a member of my family each day, and also slap me everyday. You then go on to claim how we can never be friends because I will never accept your slapping of me. Do yo understand what i mean, the main idea is completely overlooked. Afterwards hitchens does a pretty standard right wing republican tactic... i will fight for democracy, against-genocide... etc. Does he think anybody will disagree to those ideals. It's like saying i will fight poverty and justice. It's just like what bush administration did during the war on terror and iraq, to argue things that no 'patriot' would question instead of the actual topics.

Overall, i'd say I dont think this was ownage at all. Rather I'm somewhat unimpressed by hitchens, as his usual clips are him showing off his prowess of words and debating...

Completely unnecessary for Hitchens to personally attack the questioner.

Completely unnecessary to label the questioner a "fundamentalist apologist".

The questioner has a point that a lot of the "religious violence" does come as a result of poor international relations choices, and that should be acknowledged by both sides.

Hitchens also has a point that working against fundies for human rights causes can make you some enemies. But still, no reason to be so mean when you already hold the floor.

If the USA encouraged attrocities and once in a while bombs a lil wily bit a country to stop those same attrocities, one shall conclude that both these argumentists (one more eloquent than the other, indeed) share the same flaw in their reasoning.

It's not up to a country like the USA that encourages attrocities (and puts them in practice too...) to judge, "save" or run another attrocities-making country. The only thing a country as such may await is being equally judged and "saved."

For now it's a matter of retaliation and counter-retaliation, but may we hope one day the ones judging and saving have the right to do so.

The questioner* was quite untactful in asking his question. I suspect what he was really getting at is that religion is not the prime motivator and impetus for the hate towards western society, but rather the West's actions.

Religion may be the enabler of suicide and of taking extreme acts they would not contemplate in a rational state of mind, but the initial antipathy comes from genuine grievances. Whether it's seeing members of their nationality or ethnicity being imprisoned wrongly or tortured, or whether it's directly or indirectly suffering from violence inflicted upon them by the US or Israel, whether it's violating national hegemony or flat out staging coups, there are a range of genuine reasons for resentment.

Bringing up Al Qaeda has no place and is a straw man, nobody would argue that the vast majority of their goals are rational, or should be appeased. But what drives the average Arab to join Al Qaeda should not be avoided, and should not be relegated with the simplistic notion that religious fundamentalism is the be all and end cause.

>> ^RedSky:
questionnaire


I donut think it means what you think it means

So was that the only thing about Hitchens I got wrong? He's still a fat, rich, pompous git who advocates war against Iran right?
Actually as far as Iran goes he seems generally hopefully that the internal reform movement will succeed, and to my knowledge has NOT advocated war against Iran since that would harm the reformists. What Hitchens' has noted about Iran is that if the fundies at the top of the government get nukes that too could effectively end the reform movements ability to retake their country. He is fat, rich and pompous, and I think happy to add alcoholic to the mix, he's also still one of the best informed people on the middle east's biggest players.


Making fun and calling them names, instead of discussing the issues.
Completely unnecessary for Hitchens to personally attack the questioner.

Completely unnecessary to label the questioner a "fundamentalist apologist".

If you ask a stupid question...

I mean for him to overlook reasons 1 and 2 (which is the meat of the questioner's question) and look at reason 3 (as claimed by hitchens) for osama to hate the west.
Because reasons 1 and 2 differ so greatly in their nature? Your grasping at straws because you can't address the argument that Hitchens presented.


Religion may be the enabler of suicide and of taking extreme acts they would not contemplate in a rational state of mind, but the initial antipathy comes from genuine grievances. Whether it's seeing members of their nationality or ethnicity being imprisoned wrongly or tortured, or whether it's directly or indirectly suffering from violence inflicted upon them by the US or Israel, whether it's violating national hegemony or flat out staging coups, there are a range of genuine reasons for resentment.
The questioner has a point that a lot of the "religious violence" does come as a result of poor international relations choices, and that should be acknowledged by both sides.

As Hitchens would likely respond, NO!

Those arguments are lies and you should know better after having just watched Hitchens annihilate them. Simply look at some of the groups that have suffered the most from American actions. While Saddam was gassing the Kurdish people not only were the Americans allied to him, they even blamed the atrocity on Iran. Iranians suffered even more from the last decade of American interference. If your arguments hold then the people from those regions might be the ones you'd expect to be rising up against America, no? Instead you see the Kurds and the Iranian youth being bigger fans of America than Europe.

It's also apparently necessary to repeat that Hitchens clearly showed that the reasons stated by fundamentalist groups for hating America have little if anything to do with the atrocities America has committed, but instead with the ones it has PREVENTED!

But if you refuse to see and hear the distinction that's on you. I'm glad there is someone as informed, eloquent, aggressive and vocal as Hitchens out there calling out the wrongs being done when he see's them, regardless of who commits them.

what bcglorf said.

The whole point Hitchens made, was that

1.Yes, America/the west have committed atrocities
2.Hitchens knows probably more than you about them
3.Hitchens have written entire books about them, and demanded punishment for those responsible (like Kissinger)

Despite of these points however, if you look at the motives of Islamic terrorists, this is NOT their motivation. Their stated goal is to create a global, totalitarian islamic state, where you either bow down to the one true god, or die. They (al Quada and their allies) couldnt care less about genocide and the suffering of others, except that it provides them with a recruiting pool. The real threat to them, is the introduction of education, and modernization, (and thus secularization) of their society. You wouldnt need Hitchens to tell you this, you can just listen to what they are saying themselves. They are not worried about Americans killing people, they are worried that Islam is weakened.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
what bcglorf said.
The whole point Hitchens made, was that
1.Yes, America/the west have committed atrocities
2.Hitchens knows probably more than you about them
3.Hitchens have written entire books about them, and demanded punishment for those responsible (like Kissinger)
Despite of these points however, if you look at the motives of Islamic terrorists, this is NOT their motivation. Their stated goal is to create a global, totalitarian islamic state, where you either bow down to the one true god, or die. They (al Quada and their allies) couldnt care less about genocide and the suffering of others, except that it provides them with a recruiting pool. The real threat to them, is the introduction of education, and modernization, (and thus secularization) of their society. You wouldnt need Hitchens to tell you this, you can just listen to what they are saying themselves. They are not worried about Americans killing people, they are worried that Islam is weakened.


populist motherfucker and the following sheeps just like in religion but on the new "Atheist" religion

1990's - war Crimes - lets talk about that is the new "trend" -
2000's - Islamic fundamentalist - is the new trend now!!
yes women a re not abuse in any western country(oh wait they are?), mm ok lets protest against a opresor country that wants to impose a religion or you are against it (US - BUSH - christians) mmm, who cares as long Im talking Im always right
Hoo yes you are a Genius you are really saving humanity with your drunknes

@bcglorf

I have no idea how what you said relates to what I said. I am not presuming that the Kurds will blindly seek revenge for US companies having provided chemical precursors for the gas attacks, or that the Iranian people will forever be hostile to the US for their staging of a coup in 1953. What I'm saying is that extremists groups rely on these grievances to recruit their members. Unless you want to argue to me that no Iranians or Kurds have joined any fundamentalist terrorist organisations because of these events? My point was that religious indoctrination in and of itself shouldn't be enough to compel anyone into becoming an Al Qaeda member, it's only the pretense that allows them justify actions like violence against civilians and suicide.

Unless you want to argue to me that no Iranians or Kurds have joined any fundamentalist terrorist organisations because of these events?

I am arguing, as Hitchens did better than I, that these events have NOT been the cause. I believe that the Kurds and Iranian youth are excellent proof of my argument because not only have they overwhelmingly rejected fundamentalists, they are actively engaged in opposing them and arguably doing so more effectively than we are. The claim by the questioner that American actions caused fundamentalist terrorism should be clearly debunked by that example alone, Hitchens provided many more.

My point was that religious indoctrination in and of itself shouldn't be enough to compel anyone into becoming an Al Qaeda member, it's only the pretense that allows them justify actions like violence against civilians and suicide.

I would agree you are half right. I would argue though there are a good number of people for whom it really is enough. I would also say that your statement here is very far from the questioners. The question is about the underlying cause beyond the religious indoctrination. The questioner clearly throws the blame on American foreign policy above all else. The above counter examples would seem to very much disprove that notion, and nobody has seen fit to try and demonstrate otherwise.

I think left to themselves, anyone would choose pragmatism and trying to stabilize relations rather than wanton violence. The Kurdish section of Iraq is far less violent, has a much more established and effective civil service which has more or less functioned autonomously from the rest of Iraq. Iran, despite essentially having being demonstrated to be an autocracy at the highest level of government, still has a functional economy for the most part despite high inflation, and a relatively stable society. The opportunities to incite people to join a violent cause hardly exist in such circumstances, where there's relative or at least comparative peace and possible employment opportunities for young people.

See I have trouble imagining a situation where religion by itself is the prime motivator. Even looking at the origins of Al Qaeda according to Curtis's Power of Nightmares, the argument he makes is that Sayyid Qutb, arguably the founder of modern Islamist thought was only able to justify violence and only turned from secular reformist to radical Muslim after being tortured for his opposition to Nasser's westernization of Egypt. It's certainly possible that I simply don't understand how pious certain people can be, and how open to persuasion they are to perversions (or rather literal interpretations) of their faith, but I simply don't see the average person ditching their normal life and instead devoting themselves to violence purely from a particular interpretation of a holy book.

I simply don't see the average person ditching their normal life and instead devoting themselves to violence purely from a particular interpretation of a holy book.


You need to look at what the average person's 'normal' life actually is. Anyone born in Afghanistan under the Taliban lived a life were 'normal' consisted of abject poverty, illiteracy and strict adherence to Sharia law. Anyone 'fortunate' enough to get an education received it through Taliban approved madrasahs. That education always devoted an enormous time purely to a particular interpretation of a holy book, including the use of violence against infidels.

You can apply the exact same analysis to varying degree for any other country that enforce Sharia law(or similar religious law) and whose education system is dominated by Madrasahs(or similar religious schools). The most worrisome being the dominance of Madrasahs in Pakistan's education system and the deep connections and links between the Mullahs teaching there and groups like Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Pair that with Pakistan's nuclear weapons and AQ Khan's willingness to sell the related technology and suddenly it seems like the fundamentalism in Afghanistan along Pakistan's porous border is very much our problem.

>> ^acidSpine:
Anyway, just trying to inject some debate into the comments section. Looks like it worked.


The word you're looking for is trolling.

RedSky > bcglorf

It's too easy to blame them. I'm agnostic, and I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

You can try to explain that one away....good luck.

The monsters that run Al-Qaeda and other violent fundamentalist groups are merely tapping into anger - an anger that exists BECAUSE of something else.

Hitchens may be advocating a war "within" Islam but what is that supposed to mean exactly? A war on their minds? A real, I kill anyone not on my side war? What is the Islamic perspective on our actions?

My problem is that he supports the war in Iraq. Which is crazy talk. The war itself whether fueled by greed, religion or misguided revenge is NOT convincing Muslims that being extremists is wrong. Hitchens seems to think my kind of rationale is "giving up". So I take it his own methods would be to increase our fervor. I was being purposely harsh when I said Athiestic Jihad but I think in a way that's what he wants. "We need to stand up and tolerate these barbaric beliefs no more"!

If your child doesn't listen to your good advice do you start beating him? If he keeps on thinking his own way do you beat him harder? If you do, do you really think that will work on all kids?

I just totally disagree that we go over to other countries and force them to be how we want them to be. If extremists come over here and do honour killings or throw acid on unveiled womens faces then sure, we have a right to throw the book at them.

I think we need to be firm within our own countries but much more diplomatic externally. Also it helps if we're extremely successful with science, work ethic, economy etc. It makes us look like we're on to something.

I'm sorry, but whoever you are atheist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, if you start your answer to someone asking you a question with "I could have asked that question 50 times better than you did," then you're a dick.

Plain and simple.

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


The monsters that run Al-Qaeda and other violent fundamentalist groups are merely tapping into anger - an anger that exists BECAUSE of something else.


And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.


My problem is that he supports the war in Iraq. Which is crazy talk. The war itself whether fueled by greed, religion or misguided revenge is NOT convincing Muslims that being extremists is wrong.


Hitchens opposed the war in Iraq until he visited Kurdish Iraq and spent much time there. He came back with THEM having convinced HIM that the removal of Saddam was very important. It is well worth noting that the war in Iraq helped persuade Libya to change course in it's policies and even more, provided the Islamic Kurds a very bright future in place of the continual genocide Saddam was making for them. when talking about support for the Iraq war among Muslims you may want to take into account the populations of Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. You might be surprised at the support for the removal of Saddam that was present, even with the burden of Bush and Cheney's criminal bungling of the effort.

>> ^bcglorf:

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


I am not disputing that Hitchens wrote an awesome book that suitably held the west accountable for it's action.

What I am disputing is religion as the driving force behind all the madness out that way.

And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.

Yeah, because people attack America because they hate the U.S. for your freedoms? Do you really think people are willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans because of something completely unrelated to American actions?

Interventions like in Iraq? Interventions like in Iran? What interventions are you talking about?

Without the rhetoric, the whole argument goes like this:
-The question to Hitchens: Isn't the jihad fueled by the Western powers' action in Islamic land over the whole history of colonization (i.e. 1000+ years if we count the crusades)?
-Response by Hitchens: No, it is fueled by the religious content of these actions, i.e. the things jihadists are most upset about are not related to colonization per se but to the perceived desecration/irrespect of their religion's rightful place as the OTR (Only True Religion). Jihadists don't care about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, only of those that are committed against Islam (and their definition of "atrocity" is very broad). That's why the establishment of an independent country in East Timor with a christian majority is to them worse than the genocide that islamists committed with the help of their former western allies.

Let's remember that Al-Qaeda was formed just as the Cold War stopped and the U.S. started to take action against their former Islamic allies. What the U.S. did to Iran doesn't count since they are Shi'ites, not Sunni like Al-Qaeda. Also, Al-Qaeda doesn't care about the Turkish government massacring Kurds, they care that it is a secular government in a Islamic land. Same with Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraqi insurgency is another matter. An insurgency is inevitable in any invaded country. This one is used by Al-Qaeda as a testing ground and as a continuation of their war against the U.S.A. They don't care about the freedom of the Iraqis since they also are Shia Muslims in majority. They only care that the Sunni minority be free to be as Islamic as they want. They also want to destroy the U.S.A. and a war of attrition is always a good way when you're overwhelmed in terms of raw power. So in brief: the Iraqi insurgency is fueled by Al-Qaeda, not by the occupation (though the invasion/occupation was the spark, so to speak).

bcglorf, you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun." Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

Perhaps if Hitchens' book had entered the public mind as much as, say, the latest Transformers film, I could agree with you. But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

Anyway, I thought the end of the video was a bit odd. Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops, claiming that they "defend you while you sleep". These soldiers are the enforcers of government law and policies. The same laws that prevent Kissinger, Bush, and other American war criminals from being punished. They (armed agents of the government) were basically responsible with defending Kissinger as he slept, too. How does Hitchens do these two things at once? 1) Argue that Kissinger is a war criminal and must be punished, and suggest that 2) the US soldiers protecting him are heroes.

Is the priority to first wage this "war within Islam", then after it's over, refocus our efforts on getting American war criminals punished?

If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?

Furthermore, most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? It seems clear to me that most Westerners believe their own societies to be far superior to other societies (politically, physically, intellectually, economically, militaristically, etc.), and that even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve. One need only look at how frustrated white conservatives have become in the past few years, thanks to the high population growth of non-white people in the country, to see an example of how quickly democratic philosophies are thrown out the window in order to protect one's freedom/wealth. See the current Health care debate for more examples.

Last 30 seconds = gold.

I didn't realize there were such avid Hitchens fanboys on the sift, crimeny!

Hitchens has a pretty good grasp of the geo-political mistakes of the West since World War 2, but he falls short on everything prior to that.

When it comes to Islamic extremism, I've come to believe that the people pulling the strings, the terrorist leaders, mullahs, rulers, etc., care about nothing but staying in power. I'd be surprised if they genuinely believed the religion they use to stay in power. Fundamental Islam is merely the yolk they use to keep their people down, or make others do their bidding. It's only differs from Christianity in the west, in that the Christians don't openly tell their followers to kill people, they just imply it. Saying that Islam is the problem is taking the easy way out, Islam is the tool, the problem is the people using it as a weapon.

Bad people will always use what ever means they can to take and maintain power over others. Be it religion, money, or whatever. The trick to defeating them is to stop them before they can seize power, and if that can't be done, then to marginalize their effectiveness so that their followers/oppressed lose faith/fear and wrest them from power. The only people who can effectively destroy something like Al Queda, the House of Saud, or Iran's tyrannical government, are the people under their boot. The West should stop fighting the oppressors and start strengthening the oppressed.

What I am disputing is religion as the driving force behind all the madness out that way.


And I think at least on that I am with you in disagreeing with Hitchens. I'm not sure just how much of the mess out there Hitchens attributes to religion, but I do believe I estimate it much lower than he does as well. The questioner in this video though made the different point of claiming the driving force behind all the madness out that way is America foreign policy, which I disagree with as strongly as Hitchens and am glad he set it straight so well.


What interventions are you talking about?


The most stark comparison is the one Hitchens references in the video. When America intervened by supporting those committing genocide against the people of East Timor, Al-Qaida cared not. It was when America ceased to support that genocide and sided instead with the victims in East Timor, that WAS listed as Al-Qaida's third greatest reason to hate America. Any support whatsoever for the state of Israel, meaning anyone not helping to entirely eliminate the state of Israel, is number one. It would not be enough to stop supporting Israel, nothing short of helping to completely erase it is enough. Similarly we must also repress our own people as well and restrict religious freedoms least any satirist draw inappropriate pictures of the prophet and bring death on us all.

The worst of the things America has done, like say Cambodia, Africa or South America doesn't make the list for Al-Qaida's reasons at all.

you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun."

Absolutely. I don't think any one person could do more with a gun than Hitchens book has.

Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

And one man with a gun would've not only failed to stop those, it also would have failed to even bring those crimes to light. At the least Hitchens book has brought more attention to the crimes, even if it hasn't taken Kissinger's Nobel from him.


But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

I think you are looking to blame the general public there more than Hitchens, no?


Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops

You missed the point. Lots of other talking heads might thump their chests with that cliche for no reason, but Hitchens is not. He is condemning those like the questioner who don't merely criticize, but go even further to BLAMING the soldiers for the security problems that exist. There is some justification to bringing up the contrast of blaming the people protecting you for causing your problems.


most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Uh, so you don't think much of soldiers, that's your business. Don't go beyond expressing that opinion into inventing lies like the above to slander them as well, ok?


If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?


Easy, 'foreigners' will treat Americans like they treat anybody else, by how they are acting at the time. You'll notice the Kurds and Iranian reformists have no trouble embracing the Americans at all, and America has a bad track record towards them in the past.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? ... even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve.

And your point is what? The rest of that paragraph you spent basically denigrating 'westerners' and declaring them all too greedy to really want democracy? Are you answering your own question about democracy being worthwhile then? Is the answer then 'yes' because it would teach those evil westerners to be more fair? Alright, I'm pretty sure your point was just to rag on the west in general. Good for you, I suppose. A few more years of study on what everyone else in the world has done that's as bad or worse and you'll be as universally cynical as Hitchens. Come back in ten years and re-read your post.

The West should stop fighting the oppressors and start strengthening the oppressed.


I would argue that sometimes we need to do both. Look no further than the Kurdish people. Probably one of the absolutely worst oppressed people in the region are now a beacon of hope to their country but it took not only strengthening them, but fighting against their oppressor as well. I firmly believe the best approach is on a case by case basis. Sometimes one or the other or both.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Christopher Hitchens, marxist, imperialism, colonialism, islam, al queda' to 'Christopher Hitchens, marxist, imperialism, colonialism, islam, al qaeda' - edited by RhesusMonk

*length=5:41

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 5:41 - length declared by radx.