Bitch About Hitchens Here

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Where did anyone say that death and destruction is separable from war? You seem to be completely ignoring that point that's being made to you.

Supporting a war, according to you, means to encourage the death of children, innocents as well as torture.

It means to accept the death of children, innocents as well as torture as a neccessary evil i.e. "collateral damage".

Do you dispute this?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Unless you're a pacifist then you're quite simply a hypocrite. Go out and ask your friends tomorrow if we were right to have fought the Nazis, and when they say yes I'm sure you'll show as much contempt for them as you do Hitchens. Unless, once again, you're a hypocrite.

I've already explained this to you. In your analogy the US are the Nazis as the aggressors and Hitchens is the equivalent of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.

Lucy8080

omy . i came in here to tie up a link between cromwells days of bringing freedom and law...and yet on the other hand making enemies ...and its parrallels today.

ill get back here another day.

lets just say i was distracted.

ya never know what will present itself on these boards.

at least its worthy of discussion.

happy new year if i dont get back before.

p.s...cromwell made massive mistakes.. we can learn from.

Brown Bomber

Lucy8080 wrote: »

happy new year

Happy New Year

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It means to accept the death of children, innocents as well as torture as a necessary evil i.e. "collateral damage".

Do you dispute this?

No one denies that the loss of innocent life is inevitable during war, and again, unless you're a pacifist, then you must also accept this. To specifically encourage the loss of innocent life however, is a different thing entirely, and that's what you accuse Hitcens of doing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already explained this to you. In your analogy the US are the Nazis as the aggressors and Hitchens is the equivalent of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.

It makes no difference who is who in the analogy, if you think the war against the Nazis was right then you're a hypocrite, as many millions of innocent lives were lost. If you think any war is necessary in certain circumstances, then you also accept the fact that innocent lives will be lost which makes you a hypocrite.

I'm just going to go ahead and take an equally ridiculous position that you have taken, and say that you Brown Bomber, who disagrees with the war in Iraq, must therefore be a supporter of Saddam and encourage the killing the innocent men, women and children as well as torture. I've read a bit about torture at the hands of Saddam's regime and I tell ya, I'd happily be pissed on by an American soldier, take a few beatings, hell I'd take a bullet rather than torture at the hands of Saddam.

I read once of a woman and her 3 children taken into custody to be questioned on the whereabouts of the father, the interrogator asked the woman once where her husband was, she wasn't very forthcoming, so he put a bullet in the little girl's head, then a bullet in the little boy's head. Then he picked up the baby by the feet and smashed it's head against the wall.

I can't believe you'd encourage such a thing Brown Bomber.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

No one denies that the loss of innocent life is inevitable during war, and again, unless you're a pacifist, then you must also accept this. To specifically encourage the loss of innocent life however, is a different thing entirely, and that's what you accuse Hitcens of doing.

It's not actually entirely different though is it? It's different shades of grey. I read an analogy by Ilan Pappe recently that will explain it better than I can. I'll see if I can dig up an online version...

The claim that "our side" never targets civilians is familiar doctrine in violent states. And there is some truth to it. Powerful states, like the United States, do not generally try to kill particular civilians. Rather, they carry out murderous actions that they and their educated classes know will slaughter many civilians, but without specific intent to kill particular ones. In law, the routine practices might fall under the category of depraved indifference, but that is not an adequate designation for standard imperial practice and doctrine. It is more similar to walking down a street knowing that we might kill ants, but without intent to do so, because they rank so low that it just doesn't matter.

Thus Clinton's bombing of the main pharmaceutical plant in a poor African country (Sudan) might be expected to lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, as it apparently did. But since we did not aim at particular ones, there is no guilt, Western moralists assure us. And the same holds in much more extreme cases, which are all too easy to enumerate. The same is true when Israel carries out actions that it knows will kill the "grasshoppers" and "drugged roaches" who happen to infest the lands it "liberates." There is no good term for this form of moral depravity, arguably worse than deliberate slaughter, and all too familiar.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm

MagicMarker wrote: »

It makes no difference who is who in the analogy,

Of course it does! Soveriegn states as citizens do have the right to self-defense. Surely you can tell the difference between aggression and self-defense?

MagicMarker wrote: »

if you think the war against the Nazis was right then you're a hypocrite, as many millions of innocent lives were lost. If you think any war is necessary in certain circumstances, then you also accept the fact that innocent lives will be lost which makes you a hypocrite.

I'm sorry but your points are nonsense. War can bring peace, as is in the case of WWII. Even the greatest of fools couldn't argue that the illegal US invasion brought peace to Iraq. It's a false comparison.

Also, maybe you are unaware that Germany declared war on the US who were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour?

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm just going to go ahead and take an equally ridiculous position that you have taken, and say

You'll understand that I don't read it in that case.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course it does! Soveriegn states as citizens do have the right to self-defense.

So you are a hypocrite then. It's okay to kill innocent people so long as they're on the other side. Got it.

Vomit

robindch wrote: »

Not if the person being accused is continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context and so on. In this tread, you have done all of these things and so, in this case, the accusation of trolling is useful and accurate.

Robin's fair and balanced moderation strikes again.

You see, folks, the posters on this forum will claim to be enlightened, free thinkers, yet they have deified a number of public figures, for the sole reason that they have found entertaining ways of saying 'Religion is not true'. Even if most of the people here actually disagree with something as hideous as the Iraq War, they will turn a (very) blind eye when one of the 'atheist gang' (Hitchens in this case) supports it. This is how independently-minded the people here are.

It shows me that the atheist community as it exists in 2011 is just like any other group, including a religious one. Dawkins rejected that idea, claiming that organising a group of atheists would be like trying to organise a group of cats, i.e. it couldn't be done. I disagree, because if Dawkins said tomorrow that he supported the invasion/bombing of Iran, everyone on this forum would agree with him, no matter what their opinion was yesterday.

Sarky

I don't think you're actually reading this forum at all.

guitarzero

I think there are folks out there who are simply taken by his sophisticated, technical language and expression matched with his sheer smug arrogance. I know folks like this, they try to sway opinion using all this vernacular as a smoke screen, like a charm that tries to dupe you. When they are wrong, they just turn it up re: "Was the media more favourable to you when you began to support the invasion of Iraq?", his response is priceless and weightless.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

Robin's fair and balanced moderation strikes again.

Thanks

Vomit wrote: »

[...] the posters on this forum will claim to be enlightened, free thinkers, yet they have deified a number of public figures, for the sole reason that they have found entertaining ways of saying 'Religion is not true'.

Still, it's much more fun than listening to a string of desperately dull preachers saying that "religion is true", eh?

BTW, what is the collective noun for preachers? A yawn, a pomp?

Suggestions, please!

Galvasean

A murder? A lovely?

A.Tomas

RichieC wrote: »

is a thomas calling the irish dogs? :mad:

No A.Tomas is just replaying the words of a person who seems to A.Tomas like your everyday obnoxious well mannered thug.:D

It was enough for others who heard it (not Irish, most likely British in fact), to post it on the internet in disgust and to show he was an attention seeking pr1ck.

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

BTW, what is the collective noun for preachers? A yawn, a pomp?

Suggestions, please!

A wrong?

Mark200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

MagicMarker wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that if someone supports a war, then they encourage these things, which if quite frankly ludicrous,

No. It's ludicrous to think that death of innocents and destruction is seperable from war itself. Death and destruction is a component of war. Torture is an an almost certain by-product. Can you name a war that didn't involve torture?

Is Hitchens an imbecile? Was he ignorant of these obvious facts?

MagicMarker wrote: »

which is demonstrated by the fact that he was against the use of torture (the other items on your list kinda go without saying

Which is probably why he said this in a debate with Chris Hedges right?

“I think the enemies of civilization should be beaten and killed and defeated, and I don’t make any apology for it.”

It is ridiculously well known that he did not support the use of torture in the Iraq war. He famously went through waterboarding to see what it was like. And his review of it wasn't full of praise.

As I said before, just because you support the concept of a war does not mean you support how it was conducted. For example you may have supported the participation of the US in WW2 but may not have supported the use of Nukes.

lmaopml

I would agree with Hitchens that there are wars that are worthwhile in the interest of freedom from manipulation, torture and tyranny of people, that those things are to be looked down on by those who seek justice, by everybody in the international community with those values... besides the obvious fact of the power and oil thing - surely these play their part too - any eejit knows it in relation to control in the middle east, and also defending a free way of life too...that greed played a role here.

I think the wmd that was claimed as the justification for such a war was the wrong (obviously) reason why they went to war, it was never found...never found!

Sadam was a veritable 'friend' at one time, Osama was educated in Europe?? wtf.

Perhaps, I may not agree with Hitchens very often, quite frankly very few times, but I will agree that he had the courage of his convictions, and was 'wordy' lol...very wordy! even to a fault sometimes, I think his mistake was viewing the war in Iraq through a soley those religious people, and idealist lens when indeed it had many many political levels too - still does, and very little to do with the people under the state regime. This is not a laugh or a joke or some kind of superior knowledge of all things; it's reality - people are being shot, they are dying, they are being persecuted right now today, innocent people, so it's really a big thing to go to war for unjustified reasons. The war in Iraq may have been justified, if there was a valid reason, but it wasn't publicised for the correct reasons - they were not established, and still have not been realised. Wmd existed? Where?

Brown Bomber

Mark200 wrote: »

It is ridiculously well known that he did not support the use of torture in the Iraq war. He famously went through waterboarding to see what it was like. And his review of it wasn't full of praise.

Credit where it's due but volunteering for "safe" waterboarding is not "going through waterboarding". He was in control. He knew it would end, that he would see his family again, that there was not further torture in store, that they were not trying to kill him.

Has he ever said that torture was morally wrong rather than an unreliable method of intelligence gathering?

Going through waterboarding and indeed confirming it as torture is not condemning torture for intelligence purposes.

Interestingly, he also included this in his waterboarding column for Vanity Fair:

As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack.

Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

Here he suggests that torture could have prevented 9-11. Which, if not directly advocating torture is obviously Hitchens putting a big, fat +1 in the pro's of torture column.

Almost the whole of public opinion is complicit in this, as is shown by the fury over the administration's failure to pre-empt the Sept. 11 assault: a pre-emption that would almost certainly have involved some corner-cutting in the interrogation room.

Nevermind that 70-90% of Abu Ghraib prisoners were arrested by mistake or that having a cheap Casio watch could land you in Guantanamo

Brown Bomber

Mark200 wrote: »

I
As I said before, just because you support the concept of a war does not mean you support how it was conducted.

And it doesn't mean you didn't either. For example, Hitchens on the US assault on Fallujah:

“The death toll is not nearly high enough ... too many [jihadists] have escaped.”

The horrible reality of Fallujah as told by Haaretz

During the first two weeks of this month, the American army committed war crimes in Falluja on a scale unprecedented for this war. According to the relatively few media reports of what took place there, some 600 Iraqis were killed during these two weeks, among them some 450 elderly people, women and children.

The sight of decapitated children, the rows of dead women and the shocking pictures of the soccer stadium that was turned into a temporary grave for hundreds of the slain - all were broadcast to the world only by the Al Jazeera network. During the operation in Falluja, according to the organization Doctors Without Borders, U.S. Marines even occupied the hospitals and prevented hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical treatment. Snipers fired from the rooftops at anyone who tried to approach.

This was a retaliatory operation, carried out by the Marines, accompanied by F-16 fighter planes and assault helicopters, under the code name "Vigilant Resolve." It was revenge for the killing of four American security guards on March 31. But while the killing of the guards, whose bodies were dragged through the streets of the city and then hung from a bridge, received wide media coverage, and thus prepared hearts and minds for the military revenge, the hundreds of victims of the American retaliation were practically a military secret.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

BTW, what is the collective noun for preachers? A yawn, a pomp?

A wrong?

Perhaps worth a thread of its own?

A stew of fundamentalists
A suspicion of priests
A fulmination of baptists
A chill of presbyterians
A writ of scientologists

Any more?

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you are a hypocrite then. It's okay to kill innocent people so long as they're on the other side. Got it.

Are you feigning ignorance for some reason?

Can you not differentiate between US involvement in WWII and the Iraq invasion?

Can you not tell the difference between a country lying it's public into an illegal war and a state being attacked then declaring war on the aggressor which subsequently led to the aggressors allies declaring war on the attacked?

If you really can't undertand this for some incredible reason I'd direct you to article 51 of the UN Charter.

robindch

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

???

Thanks from: Plautus

Anyway, since when do viewpoints have to "coincide"? And according to Dades this thread:

specifically existed for criticism

and is...

a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you feigning ignorance for some reason?

Can you not differentiate between US involvement in WWII and the Iraq invasion?

Can you not tell the difference between a country lying it's public into an illegal war and a state being attacked then declaring war on the aggressor which subsequently led to the aggressors allies declaring war on the attacked?

If you really can't undertand this for some incredible reason I'd direct you to article 51 of the UN Charter.

Yes, I'm well aware of the differences thanks.

You're a hypocrite because you demonize Hitchens because he, according to you, ''encourages'' the death of children, innocent people and the use of torture. But by your own admission, using your own logic, so do you.

The circumstances under which the war is started really has no influence over whether or not you're a hypocrite.

Plautus

robindch wrote: »

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

As he pointed out himself, I thanked his post and I think he's speaking eminent sense.

Hitchens was a most coherent atheist voice, but he was very far from ineffable. I could enjoy his scathing critique of organised religion, in particular, while harbouring deep reservations about his ideological closeness to the Robert Kagans of this world. The man had transformed into a foreign policy hawk. And given that Hitch was one of the harshest critics of Henry Kissinger this is even more ironic.

He was also prone to misogynistic flourishes. Such as when he declared that women weren't funny. Period. I really do have quite a problem with opinions like that. Namely as I think they're stupid and baiting.

Hitchens abhorred casuistry or Jesuitical reasoning, so there's no reason for him to get the benefit of it. Bomber's quotations are sourced, and reading them gives lie to several things people seem to believe about the Hitch (such as his precise views on torture and the conduct of the Iraq war.) Job done. What else is this thread for? *checks title*

The circumstances under which the war is started really has no influence over whether or not you're a hypocrite.

It rather does if you seek to make any distinction between wars which adhere to the Laws of War (or 'just' wars: which are either defensive or proportional humanitarian interventions, i.e. they must not be likely to end up killing more than they are designed to save) and those which do not ('aggressive wars').

Within the current international legal architecture (mostly constructed after 1945) you really ought to adhere to the Geneva Conventions during the war, secure a Chapter VII authorisation before it and generally er ... not produce absolutely risible intelligence 'dossiers' as your evidence of 'aggression in train' which you need to defend against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

The hallmark of a civilised society is that even the 'mad mullahs' get their due process. And Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention. That justification only appeared after the weapons couldn't be found. John Bolton, please stand up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE

If it was humanitarian, then you'd have to gasp at the inconsistency of approach. Millions were dying in Darfur in a genocide at the same time. Where were the impassioned pleas to the Security Council from the United States over that?

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, I'm well aware of the differences thanks...The circumstances under which the war is started really has no influence over whether or not you're a hypocrite.

That's a strange loaded statement to make. Evidently you are not "aware" at all as you refuse to accept the glaringly obvious. Namely force in self-defense can be reasonably considered justified and illegal wars of aggression can reasonably be considered unjustified.

Therefore, and painfully obviously, it is not hypocritical to consider wars of aggression immoral and force carried out in self-defense necessary/justified.

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're a hypocrite because you demonize Hitchens because he, according to you, ''encourages'' the death of children, innocent people and the use of torture. But by your own admission, using your own logic, so do you.

Let's stay honest here, we've been over this and I've settled on "accepted" over "encouraged".

Mark200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And it doesn't mean you didn't either. For example, Hitchens on the US assault on Fallujah:

Fallujah is not mentioned once in that link.

And interestingly enough, when I Google "hitchens fallujah death toll" your post is the 4th result.......

Vomit

robindch wrote: »

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

[...MOD EDIT...]Something is very wrong here.

Joshua Jones

robindch wrote: »

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

I agree with BB.

sonicthebadger*

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I completely refute all of this unsupported claim.

I believe you mean reject no? You have offered no refutation in your post.

Vomit wrote: »

...
if Dawkins said tomorrow that he supported the invasion/bombing of Iran, everyone on this forum would agree with him, no matter what their opinion was yesterday.

Vomit indeed. An apt description of the content of your posts. There are plenty of things Hitch, or indeed Dawkins has said which are easy and to disagree with and worth disagreeing with strongly (someone earlier mentioned Hitch's "Women aren't funny" article and Dawkins response to Elevatorgate springs to mind too). The problem seems to be that these men are seen as "leaders" of teh Ateeists. They're not, they're just vocal and published and therefore read and discussed. And some of the time, disagreed with.

On the subject of his supposed support for torture, I saw Hitchens get waterboarded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 and it is one of the things I respect about him that he changed his view on the practice afterwards. It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is quite another to continue to hold it after you see evidence of your mistake.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

[...MOD EDIT...]

If you wish to debate moderator decisions, you can do so in the feedback forum.

Brown Bomber

Mark200 wrote: »

Fallujah is not mentioned once in that link.

M Ludders, 'Columnist Hitchens Lectures on Political Dissent', The Kenyon Collegian, 18 November 2004
Source

Vomit

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

There are plenty of things Hitch, or indeed Dawkins has said which are easy and to disagree with and worth disagreeing with strongly (someone earlier mentioned Hitch's "Women aren't funny" article and Dawkins response to Elevatorgate springs to mind too).

'Women aren't funny' springs to your mind as something to seriously disagree with 'Hitch' on, but the Iraq war doesn't? So do you agree with the war?

You see, it is more than just a matter of agreeing to disagree with someone. 'Hitch' had a voice, a pulpit, a position of power and influence, and he used it to help push public opinion into supporting the war. He was intelligent and educated enough to know how immoral it really was, but in the end, his opinion was probably for sale.

Brown Bomber

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I believe you mean reject no? You have offered no refutation in your post.

It's a matter of dispute, albeit an utterly pedantic one in the context of our debate.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

On the subject of his supposed support for torture, I saw Hitchens get waterboarded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

More accurately you saw Hitchens carry out a PR stunt which (bravely) saw him carry out a SERE training excercise which lasted about 5 seconds.

This is the much harsher reality of waterboarding as used by the US.

Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney “specially designed” to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner’s nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding “session.” Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to “dam the runoff” and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee’s mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second “applications” of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee’s nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day.

Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies/

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

and it is one of the things I respect about him that he changed his view on the practice afterwards. It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is quite another to continue to hold it after you see evidence of your mistake.

Did he change his view afterwards? Is he on record of promoting waterboarding prior to his experience?

Is he on record with unequivical condemnation of waterboarding of "enemy" detainees?

Plautus

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

On the subject of his supposed support for torture, I saw Hitchens get waterboarded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 and it is one of the things I respect about him that he changed his view on the practice afterwards. It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is quite another to continue to hold it after you see evidence of your mistake.

If you read the link to the Vanity Fair column which BB provided, Hitchens' view of waterboarding is somewhat more equivocal than that (even though he does reject the continuation of the practice):

When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

I understand this viewpoint alright; and I pronounce it a god-awful ****ty one.

Mark200

Plautus wrote: »

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

On the subject of his supposed support for torture, I saw Hitchens get waterboarded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 and it is one of the things I respect about him that he changed his view on the practice afterwards. It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is quite another to continue to hold it after you see evidence of your mistake.

If you read the link to the Vanity Fair column which BB provided, Hitchens' view of waterboarding is somewhat more equivocal than that (even though he does reject the continuation of the practice):

When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

I understand this viewpoint alright; and I pronounce it a god-awful ****ty one.

Plautus, I think you should have included the previous sentence to give the relevant context:

As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack......

Although I still don't completely agree with his point. But that paragraph shouldn't take away from the overall jist of his article. Including the title "Believe Me, It's Torture"

Dades

Between this and the feedback thread, we've agreed to officially reopen this thread to all Hitchens-related business. Be it his choice of whiskey, or indeed the Iraq war. What we had envisioned as a "Bitch about Hitchens" thread has not turned out as we thought it might, rather into a single item about Iraq, which isn't ideal.

At any rate, in the interest of having an outlet open to all, knock yourselves out, as they say.

Just keep it above board, people.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

What we had envisioned as a "Bitch about Hitchens" thread

'We'? :pac:

Brown Bomber

Mark200 wrote: »

Although I still don't completely agree with his point. But that paragraph shouldn't take away from the overall jist of his article. Including the title "Believe Me, It's Torture"

We can't be sure that the title wasn't written by a sub-editor though. And in any case he moves away from this position later.

Emphasis his.

...but it hit me yet again that this is certainly the language of torture.

Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus.

Brown Bomber

Plautus wrote: »

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

I understand this viewpoint alright; and I pronounce it a god-awful ****ty one.

I've read it again and the impression that I get from it now is that from Hitchens perspective waterboarding is torturous yet less than torture - afterall, a sixty-year-old, overweight, chain-smoking, alcoholic survived to write another day - and that torture isn't an acceptable practice to carry out on our fellow humans but is a pefectly acceptable practice to carry out on sub-humans, Islamic fundamentalists, in a dirty war, of their making.

Plautus

That's partly why I name-dropped Robert Kagan. Some of Hitch's screeds seem to have the tenor of this gem from 2002.

Particularly:

“The challenge to the postmodern world,” Cooper argues, “is to get used to the idea of double standards.” Among themselves, Europeans may “operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security.” But when dealing with the world outside Europe, “we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era — force, preemptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary.” This is Cooper’s principle for safeguarding society: “Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.”

Cooper’s argument is directed at Europe, and it is appropriately coupled with a call for Europeans to cease neglecting their defenses, “both physical and psychological.” But what Cooper really describes is not Europe’s future but America’s present. For it is the United States that has had the difficult task of navigating between these two worlds, trying to abide by, defend, and further the laws of advanced civilized society while simultaneously employing military force against those who refuse to abide by those rules.

Always makes you think of that aphorism of Benjamin Franklin's about those who compromise freedom to achieve security deserving neither and losing both.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've read it again and the impression that I get from it now is that from Hitchens perspective waterboarding is torturous yet less than torture - afterall, a sixty-year-old, overweight, chain-smoking, alcoholic survived to write another day - and that torture isn't an acceptable practice to carry out on our fellow humans but is a pefectly acceptable practice to carry out on sub-humans, Islamic fundamentalists, in a dirty war, of their making.

Could you quote the parts of that article which lead you to that conclusion? I just read it there, and I don't see that at all.

Mark200

If you watch from 4.36 you will see him refer to it as torture and that someone "should go down for this". Also if you search "hitchens waterboarding" you will see him many times saying something similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a26f-A2n1vM

Brown Bomber

Mark200 wrote: »

If you watch from 4.36 you will see him refer to it as torture and that someone "should go down for this". Also if you search "hitchens waterboarding" you will see him many times saying something similar.

Hitchens is not the arbitrator of what is torture so his opinion on whether anything is torture is largely irrelevant. Especially as most people already know that waterboarding is torture.

Okay, he does go a step further but it's still not unequivocal condemnation of torture. In his entire catalogue of work is there not a single instance where he says "torture is wrong"?

BTW, did you notice his obfuscating when the interiviewer asked him about the Bush administration and he immediately began to pin it on the CIA, who were acting under orders from the Bush administration and brought up Pinochet and Nelson Mandela and even himself and never mentioned anything about the Bush administration at all? Rather slimey behaviour.

Mark200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hitchens is not the arbitrator of what is torture so his opinion on whether anything is torture is largely irrelevant. Especially as most people already know that waterboarding is torture.

Okay, he does go a step further but it's still not unequivocal condemnation of torture. In his entire catalogue of work is there not a single instance where he says "torture is wrong"?

BTW, did you notice his obfuscating when the interiviewer asked him about the Bush administration and he immediately began to pin it on the CIA, who were acting under orders from the Bush administration and brought up Pinochet and Nelson Mandela and even himself and never mentioned anything about the Bush administration at all? Rather slimey behaviour.

He elaborates on his views at 4:04 here:

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

He describes it as "crossing a very dangerous line".

No he may not have said the exact quote "torture is wrong", but his view on it is obvious.

For example, you also haven't said "torture is wrong" but it's clear what your view is on it.

His view is clear too.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In his entire catalogue of work is there not a single instance where he says "torture is wrong"?

Reading his Vanity Fair article, I must say I don't get the general impression that he's an enthusiastic supporter of torture, either against himself, or against his enemies.

The general tone of the piece, as well as the specifics, such as the sensation of being drowned, of "gasping", of "sobbing", of "claustrophobia" etc, etc with respect to waterboarding "when contrasted to actual torture [...] is more like foreplay" all combine, at least in my mind, to suggest that he finds it mildly unpleaseant, and therefore, that he doesn't believe it's right.

I would imagine that most people who read his article would come away with that view also. And having heard, seen and read a fair amount of Hitchens, I wouldn't have categorized him as somebody who was too frightened to suggest that torture was wrong.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Could you quote the parts of that article which lead you to that conclusion? I just read it there, and I don't see that at all.

Sure, I'll try at least. Of course, it's only my interpretation. Hitchens' intentionally, IMO; obtuse.

1

"They knew about everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation "

Enhanced interrogation? What's that? and why did Hitchens use the term? Well it's another word for torture that Bush created to allow the CIA to legally torture captives.

Further info here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/18/usa.terrorism

2

"were going to show me as nearly as possible what real waterboarding might be like"


This is simply not true. Hitchens' experience was as far removed from actual CIA waterboarding as getting your nails clipped in a salon is to having them pulled with a pliars.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies/

3

Waterboarding is for Green Berets in training, or wiry young jihadists whose teeth can bite through the gristle of an old goat.

This is dehumanising and plays on negative stereotypes of the barbaric goat-herder variety.

4

For my current “handlers”

Why not torturers?

5

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

Why not simply say waterboarding is torture???

Also, it's interesting that he paralells his opinion of wateroboarding with Lincoln's views on slavery because Lincoln is synonymous with anti-slavery yet never was comprehensively anti-slavery
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html

6

I was briefly embarrassed that I hadn’t earned or warranted these refinements, but it hit me yet again that this is certainly the language of torture....Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus.

The "language of torture"? Why not simply and unequivocally "This is torture"? And then proclaims himself possibly mistaken to even equate the non-commital claim of the "language of torture" with the processes of waterboarding.

7

The team who agreed to give me a hard time in the woods of North Carolina belong to a highly honorable group.

This same team are the enhanched interrogation technique experts, i.e. torture experts are a "highly honourable group" in Hitchens view.

8

These heroesstay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch.

Hitchens has now elevated these torture experts from "highly honourable" to "heroes".

9

Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution.

This is only putting forward a skewed version of the reality. US soliders/contractors have also made horror videos of torture and murder and also there is no Habeus Corpus for these detainees subjected to "enhanced interrogation", with many of them being innocent.

10

When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack.

Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl?

This is quite clear: We are not as bad as the "appaling enemies" who use "actual torture" i.e. worse than waterboarding - (so get off our backs!)

11

On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

Hitchens doesn't "trust" anyone who doesn't "clearly understand" that in this epic clash of civilisations that you need to fight fire (torture) with fire (torture).

Any attempt to hold the Bush Administration accountable for committing torture is "diseased" and "lame"

12

One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not.

Everyone tortured in the War on Terror is ipso facto Al Qaeda and as such are trained to lie so even if they claim to be tortured, they possibly weren't

Mark200

There are so many misinterpretations there that it feels like my head is about to explode just from reading the post.

I think you really are just seeing what you want to see. I don't think anyone who reads that article without expectations or prejudgements could come out with such interpretations.

robindch

Mark200 wrote: »

There are so many misinterpretations there that it feels like my head is about to explode just from reading the post.

At the risk of godwinning myself, BB's claims read like those of a Holocaust-denier who passed by the skeptics forum some years back and who maintained, in the teeth of insurmountable logic to the contrary, that the lack of a document, sound-clip or video of Adolf Hitler ordering the execution of jews, or hearing of same, amounted to firm evidence that Hitler knew nothing of either, and was therefore innocent of the crimes that history has generally laid at his door.

At a certain point, and I think this thread reached it a while ago, it's simply not worth continuing a debate about whether somebody who voluntarily submitted to torture, and who wrote a powerful and condemnatory piece concerning his experiences, thought it was right or wrong.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

At the risk of godwinning myself, BB's claims read like those of a Holocaust-denier who passed by the skeptics forum some years back and who maintained, in the teeth of insurmountable logic to the contrary, that the lack of a document, sound-clip or video of Adolf Hitler ordering the execution of jews, or hearing of same, amounted to firm evidence that Hitler knew nothing of either, and was therefore innocent of the crimes that history has generally laid at his door.

At a certain point, and I think this thread reached it a while ago, it's simply not worth continuing a debate about whether somebody who voluntarily submitted to torture, and who wrote a powerful and condemnatory piece concerning his experiences, thought it was right or wrong.

A bit like the Sam Harris thread where he insisted that Harris never criticised the Jews despite BB never reading Harris' stuff and despite quotes to the contrary.

pH

King Mob wrote: »

A bit like the Sam Harris thread where he insisted that Harris never criticised the Jews despite BB never reading Harris' stuff and despite quotes to the contrary.

If you get tired of criticising them for what they have said - have a go at them for things they never said.

Brilliant.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

At the risk of godwinning myself, BB's claims read like those of a Holocaust-denier who passed by the skeptics forum some years back and who maintained, in the teeth of insurmountable logic to the contrary, that the lack of a document, sound-clip or video of Adolf Hitler ordering the execution of jews, or hearing of same, amounted to firm evidence that Hitler knew nothing of either, and was therefore innocent of the crimes that history has generally laid at his door.

How funny you should make that point! I made the exact same point to Magicmarker in this very thread at post: 143 . This is when I was supposedly trolling

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the same idiotic argument of holocaust deniers who ask you to point out where Hitler stated he wanted to exterminate the Jews.

Who called me a troll literally within five minutes at post 145

You've thanked his troll-calling posts so where does that leave us?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

At a certain point, and I think this thread reached it a while ago, it's simply not worth continuing a debate about whether somebody who voluntarily submitted to torture, and who wrote a powerful and condemnatory piece concerning his experiences, thought it was right or wrong.

This is condemnatory?

"When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay."