Bitch About Hitchens Here

MagicMarker

Vomit wrote: »

Now that really IS trolling.

That's a no then I guess.

Apart from supporting the war, like millions of people did, then how exactly did he help do anything?

Also, I assume before you befriend people you ask them if they support the war or not? And presumably you've cut contact with all your friends/family who did support the war, stopped reading books by people who supported the war, stopped listening to music by bands who supported the war, stopped doing anything related to people who supported the war, you know, to keep your moral fibre in tact?

Or is it just the popular atheist you have a problem with?

Vomit

MagicMarker wrote: »

That's a no then I guess.

Apart from supporting the war, like millions of people did, then how exactly did he help do anything?

Also, I assume before you befriend people you ask them if they support the war or not? And presumably you've cut contact with all your friends/family who did support the war, stopped reading books by people who supported the war, stopped listening to music by bands who supported the war, stopped doing anything related to people who supported the war, you know, to keep your moral fibre in tact?

Or is it just the popular atheist you have a problem with?

You speak of 'the war' so casually, as if it's just something like a preference for one kind of marmalade or another. This war has cost (I repeat) over 1 million lives, and was based on imperialistic and hegemonic goals. There are lots of people I don't associate with. I choose my friends with care (we have that luxury with those we call friends). And if I encounter anyone in 2011 who (still) supports the war, lets just say I don't exactly hold them up as my hero and deify them to the point of trying to silence anyone who speaks ill of them.

Morag

It's a shame he was so sexist.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

Christopher Hitchens, my colleague for twenty years, was clever, hilarious, generous to his friends, combative, prodigiously energetic and fantastically productive. He could write with equal ease about Philip Larkin, capital punishment, Henry Kissinger and having his balls waxed. I used to wonder, enviously, how he could write so much, especially given his drinking, his travels, his public appearances and his demanding social life. He told me once that a writer should be able to write with no difficulty, anytime, anywhere—but actually, not many writers can do that.

I think part of the reason why he was so prolific—and the reason he had such an outsize career and such an outsize effect on his readers—is that he was possibly the least troubled with self-doubt of all the writers on earth. For a man who started out as an International Socialist and ended up banging the drum for the war in Iraq and accusing Michelle Obama of fealty to African dictators on the basis of a stray remark in her undergraduate thesis, he seems to have spent little time wondering how he got from one place to another, much less if he’d lost anything on the way.

After he left The Nation he said he had a “libertarian gene.” It’s a rum sort of libertarianism, and a rum sort of gene, that expresses itself first as membership in a Trotskyist sect, and then as support for the signal deed of an administration that stood for everything he had spent his life fighting, from economic inequality to government promotion of religion.

So many people have praised Christopher so effusively, I want to complicate the picture even at the risk of seeming churlish. His drinking was not something to admire, and it was not a charming foible. Maybe sometimes it made him warm and expansive, but I never saw that side of it. What I saw was that drinking made him angry and combative and bullying, often toward people who were way out of his league—elderly guests on the Nation cruise, interns (especially female interns). Drinking didn’t make him a better writer either—that’s another myth.

Christopher was such a practiced hand, with a style that was so patented, so integrally an expression of his personality, he was so sure he was right about whatever the subject, he could meet his deadlines even when he was totally sozzled. But those passages of pointless linguistic pirouetting? The arguments that don’t track if you look beneath the bravura phrasing? Forgive the cliché: that was the booze talking. And so, I’m betting, were the cruder manifestations of his famously pugilistic nature: as F Scott Fitzgerald said of his own alcoholism: “When drunk I make them all pay and pay and pay.” It makes me sad to see young writers cherishing their drinking bouts with him, and even his alcohol-fuelled displays of contempt for them (see Dave Zirin’s fond reminiscence of having Christopher spit at him) as if drink is what makes a great writer, and what makes a great writer a real man.

So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were “****ing fat slags” (not “sluts,” as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortion and his cartoon version of feminism as “possessive individualism.” I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that.

It wasn’t just the position itself, it was his lordly condescending assumption that he could sort this whole thing out for the ladies in 1,000 words that probably took him twenty minutes to write. “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows” that pro-life women are on to something when they recoil at the idea of the “disposable fetus.” Hmmmm… that must be why most OB-GYNs are pro-choice and why most women who have abortions are mothers. Those doctors just need to spend an hour with a medical textbook; those mothers must never have seen a sonogram. Interestingly, although he promised to address the counterarguments made by the many women who wrote in to the magazine, including those on the staff, he never did. For a man with a reputation for courage, it certainly failed him then. (Years later, when he took up the question of abortion again in Vanity Fair, he said basically the exact same things, using the same straw-women arguments. Time taught him nothing, because he didn’t want to learn.)

That was the bad side of Christopher—the moral bully and black-and-white thinker posing as daring truth-teller. It was the side that reveled in 9/11, because now everyone would see how evil the jihadis were, and that rejoiced in the thought that the Korans of Muslim fighters would not protect them from American bullets. Some eulogists have praised him for moral consistency, but I don’t see that: he wrote tens of thousands of words attacking Clinton for executing Ricky Ray Rector, but seemed untroubled about George W Bush’s execution of 152 people—at the time a historical record—as governor of Texas. He was so fuelled by his own certainty he claimed that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq only proved they were there.

I don’t know how long Christopher will be read. Posterity isn’t kind to columnists and essayists and book reviewers, even the best ones. I doubt we’d be reading much of Orwell’s nonfiction now had he not written the indelible novels 1984 and Animal Farm. But as a vivid presence Christopher will be long remembered. A lot of writers, especially political writers, are rather boring as people, and some of the best writers are the most boring of all—they’re saving themselves for the desk. Christopher was the opposite—an adventurer, a talker, a bon vivant, a tireless burner of both ends of the candle. He made a lot of enemies, but probably more friends. He made life more interesting for thousands and thousands of people and posed big questions for them—about justice, politics, religion, human folly. Of how many journalists can that be said?

[-0-]

Vomit wrote: »

Nice thread!

Well, lets see- commentators like Christopher Hitchens helped march the West into the East on yet another imperialistic effort, killing over 1,000,000 Iraqis alone, and razing Afghanistan to the ground. Those men, women and children are dead, and they are never coming back. Those aircraft carriers float on public support just as much as they do water, and people like Hitchens, albeit indirectly, have blood on their hands.

But hey, he spoke cleverly about religion...yaaay!! There are people reading this who wish they are as smart as Hitchens was, and who hope that he would have considered them peers. No, he considered you to be paying customers for his books, and nothing more.

It's amazing how many people here are saying, "I disagreed with his stance on the war, but..." But what? Why can't you just dissociate yourself from him? Is your moral fibre so thin that all someone has to do to win your undying fandom is speak favourably on a single topic you care about? It boggles the mind, really. There are plenty of people you can look to who can speak very eloquently about religion and atheism. Why does THIS a-hole have to be your champion, so much so that you'll seek to censor anyone who speaks ill of him. I received a mod warning on the other thread for 'being naughty' for mildly scoffing at someone's attempt to dismiss my opinion as trolling. (As I write this, I see the same user calling someone else a troll too) Did Hitchens make donations to this forum? Am I missing something? When Hitchens put pen to paper in his latter years, I think he knew how easily his target audience could be won over.

Since when do you have to agree with everything someone says or does in order to speak favourably of them? I like Roy Keane but I don't like that he walked out of the Irish team when they needed him in the World Cup in Saipan. Does that mean that I should not like everything else about him just because I don't agree with what he did in that instance? You have a VERY black / white view of the world.

Hitchens was a reason unto his own. He was neither right nor left. He did what we wanted, and was able to back up his views better than you or I could ever dream of doing. Like science, when he found out he was wrong he changed his views. He was human, fallible, and never pretended otherwise. I actually supported the wars on Iraq & Afghanistan. I am glad Saddam Hussein is dead, along with Osama and even Kim Jong II for that matter.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

I received a mod warning on the other thread for 'being naughty' for mildly scoffing at someone's attempt to dismiss my opinion as trolling.

Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts.

Brown Bomber

Vomit wrote: »

"I disagreed with his stance on the war, but..."

That's what turned my stomach just a little bit. There is no "but", Hitchens came across as homicidal in his bloodlust at times yet for those who idolise him this is somehow supposed to be acceptable because he didn't believe in God, and had a sharp turn of phrase.

For example, PZ Myers, Professor of Biology at UMM attended a talk he gave in 2007 where Hitchens advocated genocide.

Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.

This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php

[-0-]

Sharrow wrote: »

It's a shame he was so sexist.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

Are you serious?

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

The cure for poverty has a name, in fact. It’s called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you throw in a handful of seeds, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but health and education, will increase.

That is real sexist alright.

Vomit

[-0-] wrote: »

Since when do you have to agree with everything someone says or does in order to speak favourably of them? I like Roy Keane but I don't like that he walked out of the Irish team when they needed him in the World Cup in Saipan. Does that mean that I should not like everything else about him just because I don't agree with what he did in that instance? You have a VERY black / white view of the world.

Wow, comparing the Iraq war with Roy Keane walking out. You people astound me.

robindch wrote:

Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts.

I've looked back over the thread and the closest I can see to what you're referring to is you posting almost simultaneously to me, telling me to either say something positive, or not say anything at all.

Lke I said, this post was so near to mine that it occurred within the same minute. If that was the first 'warning' you're referring to, then there's no way I could possible have seen it, yet I was still carded (hours later). I did try to PM you about this but got no reply.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

Are you serious?

That is real sexist alright.

Didn't he call the Dixie Chicks "fat slags" for questioning his pal Bush?

Lucy8080

o.k.

what was the topic on the other thread?

oh yeah...me agreeing with hitchens definition of tyranny and that he sees it as an enemy.

and also what to do?

diplomacy b.b. says.

lets explore.

moses: let my people go.

pharoah: no

moses : we cant go on like this forever.

pharoah: what ya gonna do?

moses: ur inviting a plague on ur ass...by our friends in high places...whom we support.

hitchens: works for me.

b.b. god is breaching sovereignty...moses is a warmonger.

sovereignty belongs to the people. government is by the people ...of the people ...for the people.


tyrants are not sovereign.

if they wont listen to the diplomat...and they wont let the people be free of their tyranny...then either the people will go to war or their friends in high places.

as for war crimes....a democracy has lots of noise...and these things come out to the light of day .

in a tyranny the silence is deafening.

but lets not breach the sovereignty of a tyrant. thats a new one on me.

Lucy8080

oh , on hitchens and thomas paine.

i did mention my reading on thomas paine came before hitchs book.

so hitch is not infallible. i agree. i would say he did too.

gottta watch those infallible guys.

[-0-]

Vomit wrote: »

Wow, comparing the Iraq war with Roy Keane walking out. You people astound me.

If you took your head out of your own arse you would realise that I'm not comparing the Iraq war with Roy Keane walking out. I'm giving an example of a person who has done or said things that I don't agree with. The difference being that I'm not so bloody immature to label them satan and say I don't like them anymore.

To view the world in such black & white terms is extremely immature. Do the world a favour and don't reproduce. There's enough of your ilk in existence today, sadly enough.

Brown Bomber

but lets not breach the sovereignty of a tyrant. thats a new one on me.

The concept and practice of International Law is new to you?

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Didn't he call the Dixie Chicks "fat slags" for questioning his pal Bush?

He should have called them fat <mod snip>.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

He should have called them fat <snip>.

Didn't you just say this this 2 mins ago.......? WTF?

The difference being that I'm not so bloody immature to label them satan and say I don't like them anymore.

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Didn't you just say this this 2 mins ago.......? WTF?

My tolerance for musical mediocrity is non existent and that is where my comment comes from. What have they ever done for the world?

Lucy8080

if international law supports tyranny...you can keep it.

ill think for myself.

[-0-]

Sharrow wrote: »

It's a shame he was so sexist.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

Since nobody else has bothered to point you in direction of this article, I may as well do it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/obit/2004/12/susan_sontag.html

Now, you were saying?

jank

Lucy8080 wrote: »

if international law supports tyranny...you can keep it.

ill think for myself.

Quick, lets invade the US!

MagicMarker

Vomit wrote: »

You speak of 'the war' so casually, as if it's just something like a preference for one kind of marmalade or another. This war has cost (I repeat) over 1 million lives, and was based on imperialistic and hegemonic goals.

None of which Hitchens is responsible for, either directly or even indirectly, I'm not sure if you're aware of that or not.

Vomit wrote: »

There are lots of people I don't associate with. I choose my friends with care (we have that luxury with those we call friends). And if I encounter anyone in 2011 who (still) supports the war,

You didn't answer my question, have you cut all ties with all friends and family who support the war, have you stopped supporting authors/musicians, any public figures who support the war? Because if not then you're surely as guilty as them by association as you think Hitchens is.

Vomit wrote: »

lets just say I don't exactly hold them up as my hero and deify them to the point of trying to silence anyone who speaks ill of them.

Well done, neither do I.

pH

Firstly let me say I'm no great supporter of the Iraq war, nor of Blair/Bush or Hitch's view that it was right but let's at least get things right.

Firstly most impartial observers estimate the civilian death toll at 100,000 - 150,000 - not 1 million as is being claimed. That's not to say "well is that all?", no indeed 100,000 men women and children dead is appalling, but let's try and be accurate.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Even with the 100,000 figure, we shouldn't then do what that imbecile Marion Finucane did last weekend and attribute the 100,000 to the US, the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgents, deaths directly attributable to the Us and Iraqi forces are probably around 10,000.

sensibleken

MagicMarker wrote: »

Nil points, troll harder.

ah in fairness, thats not trolling its just disagreeing with you

MagicMarker

sensibleken wrote: »

ah in fairness, thats not trolling its just disagreeing with you

It's not trolling to say that someone is responsible for over a million deaths because he supports a war?

sensibleken

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's not trolling to say that someone is responsible for over a million deaths because he supports a war?

He said indirectly because he publicly argued in its favour. Its a perfectly valid stance.

Just an I wouldnt exonerate Fox news from their responsibility in the upsurge in all things crazy

Brown Bomber

pH wrote: »

Firstly let me say I'm no great supporter of the Iraq war, nor of Blair/Bush or Hitch's view that it was right but let's at least get things right.

Firstly most impartial observers estimate the civilian death toll at 100,000 - 150,000 - not 1 million as is being claimed. That's not to say "well is that all?", no indeed 100,000 men women and children dead is appalling, but let's try and be accurate.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Even with the 100,000 figure, we shouldn't then do what that imbecile Marion Finucane did last weekend and attribute the 100,000 to the US, the majority of those deaths were caused by insurgents, deaths directly attributable to the Us and Iraqi forces are probably around 10,000.

No offense, but you need to pay more attention to your own links:

Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.

i.e "the invasion" Hitchens clamoured for.

Lucy8080

hi jank,

we ve been invading the u.s. for years. we love it so much that we try to avoid being deported when we havent got a green card.

we dont invade it to remove freedom. but to enjoy the freedom it offers.

as long as ur invasion is not intended to remove freedom...invade away.

the_antagonist

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's what turned my stomach just a little bit. There is no "but", Hitchens came across as homicidal in his bloodlust at times yet for those who idolise him this is somehow supposed to be acceptable because he didn't believe in God, and had a sharp turn of phrase.

For example, PZ Myers, Professor of Biology at UMM attended a talk he gave in 2007 where Hitchens advocated genocide.

That's quite possibly the most ignorant post I have ever had the misfortune of coming across.

PZ wrote:

Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy.

Absolutely agree. Islamic terrorism needs to be destroyed.

We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up.

I wouldn't say the only solution but it's hard not to admit that this is looking increasingly likely to be the safest course of action.

The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

PZ Meyers should know better than to say something so blatantly false. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Hitchens' works would immediately see it as such. Hitchens advocates killing Islamic terrorists not Muslims in general and this is so obvious from the mans books, speeches and debates that it's sad that I need to point it out.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy

Absolutely agree. Islamic terrorists need to be destroyed. It's foolish to think you can negotiate with these people. They have no interest in negotiation, they have no interest in compromise which they have proven time and time again.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

Absolute nonsense from PZ. Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists, or any other label you wish to apply does not equal Muslim.

It's a well known fact that Hitchens supports the Kurds, of whom the vast majority are Muslim, right to their own homeland as well as supporting Muslims who fight the Taliban and other Islamist extremists all over the world. Is he supporting them now only to wish them all dead later ?

Hitchens never advocated genocide against Muslims, he advocated the destruction of Islamic terrorists and Theocratic states such as Iran.

To confuse what he says about this with some kind of genocidal belief against all Muslims is ignorance of a caliber I would have thought impossible to come from someone such as Professor Meyers.

The talk that Meyers is talking about can be watched here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aDySvIl0XE

And the most ignorant statement of the lot, that killing Islamic terrorists will simply make more. That by attacking the Taliban and people like them that we simply make them stronger, that we create more and more terrorists.

These people are not attacking the civilised world because of what it does, they are attacking the civilised world for what it is. We are being attacked because we exist and that is an unforgivable crime to these people.

And from the same speech by Hitchens which PZ is talking about comes his take on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHR8AOxxkc

In this video, for those who don't wish to watch it, Hitchens explains how the number 3 charge on Bin Ladens list of accusations against the West is that the US and it's allies had the audacity to aid the people of East Timor from a Muslim country, Indonesia, committing genocide against the people of East Timor.

Brown Bomber

the_antagonist wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Islamic terrorists need to be destroyed. It's foolish to think you can negotiate with these people. They have no interest in negotiation, they have no interest in compromise which they have proven time and time again. .

yeah! Kill 'em all! :rolleyes:

the_antagonist wrote: »

These people are not attacking the civilised world because of what it does, they are attacking the civilised world for what it is. We are being attacked because we exist and that is an unforgivable crime to these people. .

Don't forget freedom! :pac:

the_antagonist wrote: »

Is he supporting them now only to wish them all dead later ?

No. He's dead. his warmongering days are over.

(I would like to come back to your post when I have time)

the_antagonist

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yeah! Kill 'em all! :rolleyes:

Yes kill terrorists. Imprison terrorists. Fight terrorists.

(I would like to come back to your post when I have time)

If all you've got is nonsensical claims of genocidal tendencies from Hitchens don't bother. What you've written so far has been self defeating dribble so I can't imagine you're going to suddenly come out with anything better than more ad hominem tripe.

Lucy8080

who are the enemies of powersharing? what are they afraid of?

who should we blame for omagh? how should we deal with them?

who is afraid of powersharing in iraq? what are they afraid of?

how should we deal with them.

sensibleken

the_antagonist wrote: »

Yes kill terrorists. Imprison terrorists. Fight terrorists.



.

suppose that would kind of depend on your definition of terrorist

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

Lucy8080

well done sensibleken...you have fought tyranny by exposing the fbi to the light in this case.

they may desist now. no weapons needed except a bit of journalism in a free society.

well done.

the_antagonist

sensibleken wrote: »

suppose that would kind of depend on your definition of terrorist

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

Last time I checked people investigating factory farms weren't packing automatic rifles and trying to blow people up.

Or are you suggesting I need to specify when arrest and subsequent imprisonment is the correct course of action as opposed to killing terrorists who refuse to surrender ?

I think it would be condescending to do so.

sensibleken

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well done sensibleken...you have fought tyranny by exposing the fbi to the light in this case.

they may desist now. no weapons needed except a bit of journalism in a free society.

well done.

thank you. i think. actually ive no idea

sensibleken

the_antagonist wrote: »

Last time I checked people investigating factory farms weren't packing automatic rifles and trying to blow people up.

Or are you suggesting I need to specify when arrest and subsequent imprisonment is the correct course of action as opposed to killing terrorists who refuse to surrender ?

I think it would be condescending to do so.

nope. i was just pointing out that the terrorist label is used quite liberaly by those prosecuting the war on terror and has been used as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later (though usually without the asking questions bit)

Knasher

Lucy8080 wrote: »

who is afraid of powersharing in iraq? what are they afraid of?

Specifically on Iraq, the problem comes down to the fact there are two main branches of islam in Iraq, the Shia and the Sunni. The majority of Iraqis are shia, however the sunni held all the political power. So the sunni are afraid of being repressed (as well as repercussions from when they were in charge) because any democratic government will probably have a shia majority.

The same thing happened in South Africa, with the whites holding all the power while only representing a tiny minority of the actual people.

The situation in Northern Ireland is a little different, but generally it boils down to the same sort of thing.

Lucy8080

your welcome. thats how working together in a free and open society works.

as the fbi would be servants of the people ...we tell em when we think they are overstepping the mark.

good journalism keeping on top of the powers we give government means we nip what we dont want in the bud.

no free press in tyranical states.

Lucy8080

thanks knasher.

ed2hands

pH wrote: »

...Firstly most impartial observers estimate the civilian death toll at 100,000 - 150,000 - not 1 million as is being claimed.

Even with the 100,000 figure...

100,000?
An absolute joke of a figure. And you're appealing for accuracy?

That IBC is definitely not an accurate figure. It's dismissed by many and is otherwise derisively known as the "Western Media body-count".

It's ironic that people who wish to find an accurate figure will completely ignore scientific surveys such as the Lancet in favour of biased media estimates..

"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been
654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war"
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

"On 25 October, Dai Davies MP asked Gordon Brown about civilian deaths in Iraq. Brown passed the question to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who passed it to his junior minister, Kim Howells, who replied: &#147;We continue to believe that there are no comprehensive or reliable figures for deaths since March 2003.&#148; This was a deception. In October 2006, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. A Freedom of Information search revealed that the government, while publicly dismissing the study, secretly backed it as comprehensive and reliable. The chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Roy Anderson, called its methods &#147;robust&#148; and &#147;close to best practice&#148;. Other senior governments officials secretly acknowledged the survey&#146;s &#147;tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones&#148;. Since then, the British research polling agency, Opinion Research Business, has extrapolated a figure of 1.2 million deaths in Iraq. Thus, the scale of death caused by the British and US governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century."
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/no-tears-no-remorse-for-the-fallen-of-iraq

sensibleken

it doesnt matter whether it was 1 million or 100,000 they were all killed for their own good.

RichieC

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[QUOTE='[-0-];76108668']Are you serious?

That is real sexist alright.

Didn't he call the Dixie Chicks "fat slags" for questioning his pal Bush?[/Quote]

is it sexist to call a man a fat bastard?

Lucy8080

what causes war famine and bloodshed?

what turns its eye to death ,hunger , and suffering?

Lucy8080

im gonna say an odd thing here.

it only occurred to me this week.

if we had accepted cromwell "the hated republican tyrant " who killed thousands...


and was for freedom of religion in a time when the catholic church was mighty....

we might have evolved quicker into a state like america..and avoided the imperial king billy

and avoided the loss of 2 million people to the indifference of religious ascendancy and imperialisitic arrogance( something cromwell hated).

today we have the brits acting as honest broker with the americans....but our blindness cripples us....because we cant separate the past from now...the lens is manky...

muslims aint the enemy.

we stand against their enemies.

islam brought equality between the rich man and poor under their god...levelled both...

religious and political tyranny ...as always...as in european history...

serves itself always.

divides the people...


and tears fall.

and we weep. and struggle for solutions.

but we have and depend on each other...lets never forget.

together we stand...divided we fall.

Peregrinus

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im gonna say an odd thing here.

it only occurred to me this week.

if we had accepted cromwell "the hated republican tyrant " who killed thousands...


and was for freedom of religion in a time when the catholic church was mighty....

Cromwell was for freedom of religion?

I'm afraid you lost me there.

Lucy8080

do ya think the catholic church was for it in the 17th century?

it had the monopoly in europe . anything other than catholism to them was not religion..

to stand against that ...well lets consider the times that were in it .

and ...if truth be told...catholicism was on the war path against any move away from itself.

im not comparing todays catholicism/protestanism/freedoms...to those days.

america was not even born.

hate /love/indifference to cromwell does not disguise the fact he was against tyranical monarchy and for parliamentarianism.

we didnt do so well under king billy and his descendants.

would cromwell have been any worse?

a speculative question i admit!

Peregrinus

Lucy8080 wrote: »

do ya think the catholic church was for it in the 17th century?

No, it wasn’t. But that doesn’t mean that Cromwell was.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

it had the monopoly in europe . anything other than catholism to them was not religion..

to stand against that ...well lets consider the times that were in it .

The Catholic church certainly didn’t have a monopoloy of power in Britain or Ireland, which is where Cromwell’s career played out. On the contrary, it was a persecuted and marginalized body, even before Cromwell came along.

Cromwell’s opposition was to the (Anglican) monarchy, and the (Anglican) ecclesiastical establishment. And, far from favouring religious freedom, he wanted to take over the Church of England (and Ireland), remake it in accordance with his own puritan Calvinist beliefs, and then enforce this new religious orthodoxy much more strongly than the previous orthodoxy had been enforced.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

hate /love/indifference to cromwell does not disguise the fact he was against tyranical monarchy and for parliamentarianism.

He was not. He was for parliamentarianism as long as parliament seemed ready to do what Cromwell thought should be done. When that ceased to be the case, he stopped being a supporter of parliament. He dispersed parliament by force, and replaced it with an assembly nominated by himself. That, too, was removed, and Cromwell had the army appoint him “Lord Protector”. A new parliament was summoned but, when Cromwell didn’t like the direction it took, he dissolved it again and ruled, in effect, through the army. Cromwell was a military dictator.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

we didnt do so well under king billy and his descendants.

would cromwell have been any worse?

a speculative question i admit!

It’s not a speculative question at all. We know exactly how Cromwell would have ruled because he did in fact rule, until his death.

His rule was much, much worse than King Billy’s. History mostly remembers the savagery of his campaign of conquest in Ireland, but the way Ireland was ruled after the conquest was completed was just appalling; the debate between historians is about whether Cromwellian rule can properly be called genocide, or just ethnic cleansing. Religious freedom was never so savagely repressed in Ireland as it was under Cromwellian rule. The practice of Catholicism was totally banned - the only time in Irish history when this happened - and bounties were offered for the capture of priests, who were murdered out of hand when arrested. And, say what you like about King Billy, but he never sold his defeated opponents into slavery.

Mark200

Just on his views on the Iraq war... it's not entirely relevant to quote the death count. He was, of course, a supporter of the 'intervention' in Iraq, but he was completely against how it was done. I'm pretty sure I remember him calling the execution of the 'intervention' as extremely incompetent. Just because he thought that Nato should intervene in Iraq does not mean that he was okay with how it was done or the deaths that resulted.

Just as a comparison, you could agree that the US should have intervened in WW2 but may not agree that they should have used Nukes.

MagicMarker

I've been watching some of his comments on the Iraq war (which I'd never really payed attention to before now) and I'm struggling to disagree with his reasons to support the war.

Can those who label him as a warmonger maybe link us to some of his arguments and tell us what they disagree with? It seems to me he was a supporter of the liberation of the Iraqi people from a genocidal dictatorship, do the anti-hitchens folk disagree with this reasoning?

Sonics2k

Mark200 wrote: »

Just on his views on the Iraq war... it's not entirely relevant to quote the death count. He was, of course, a supporter of the 'intervention' in Iraq, but he was completely against how it was done. I'm pretty sure I remember him calling the execution of the 'intervention' as extremely incompetent. Just because he thought that Nato should intervene in Iraq does not mean that he was okay with how it was done or the deaths that resulted.

Just as a comparison, you could agree that the US should have intervened in WW2 but may not agree that they should have used Nukes.

He was actually quite against the methods and reasoning used.

He did support the war because he believes that Dictators such as Saddam should be taken out, and countries turned to democracy instead of Totalitarianism.

R P McMurphy

The antagonist - when you have referred to those attacking western countries as attacking civilised countries, what are you implying about the countries those people hail from?