Christopher Hitchens, The Iraq War, that sort of thing.

wretcheddomain

[-0-] wrote: »

To this day I still support the war on Iraq.

What are your reasons for supporting the Iraq War?

I just hope you don't provide a direct quote from Hitchens because his reasons are somewhat farcical. Moreover, his reasons were not the reasons for initiating the Iraq War. However, as I've said, I'm pre-empting you on the assumption this is how you'll answer, but there's every reason you won't quote his views.

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What are your reasons for supporting the Iraq War?

I just hope you don't provide a direct quote from Hitchens because his reasons are somewhat farcical. Moreover, his reasons were not the reasons for initiating the Iraq War. However, as I've said, I'm pre-empting you on the assumption this is how you'll answer, but there's every reason you won't quote his views.

You're asking this on a thread about Hitchens? You should probably start another thread about the war to be honest, but anyway, lets move on.

I've said I agree with the man on most things (not all, but a lot), and you ask why I agree with the war on Iraq but say I can't quote Hitchens reasons for that support.

Let me be brutally honest. I did not give a flying fuck about literature, politics, or religion until I read what this man had to say. He inspired me in more ways than one. He inspired me to be an intellectual, to give a fuck.

I agree with the war on Iraq for a lot of reasons, but top of the list is that Sadam was a lunatic who needed to be taken out. The crimes he committed against his own people speak for themselves. I'm confident I don't need to go through them with you, as you seem to have made up your mind already. Given the hindsight we have right now, do I still support it? You're damn right I do and his actions are the reason I'm still in favour of the war.

Pushtrak

[-0-] wrote: »

You're asking this on a thread about Hitchens? You should probably start another thread about the war to be honest, but anyway, lets move on.

It's relevant. If the topic of discussion is disagreeing with a guy about ideas he presented, then naturally, the ideas themselves will become the discussion.

[-0-]

Pushtrak wrote: »

It's relevant. If the topic of discussion is disagreeing with a guy about ideas he presented, then naturally, the ideas themselves will become the discussion.

The reason for the thread was finding an article written about him after he died.

Hi. I'm looking for a particular obituary that I read in the days after Hitchens' death. It stuck with me because it was the type of obituary that Hitchens himself might have wrote. One of its key points (which might re-jog your memory) is that of all the issues that Hitchens tackled, he got the most important one wrong (Iraq).

Pushtrak

[-0-] wrote: »

The reason for the thread was finding an article written about him after he died.

Jernal wrote: »

As the OP's query appears resolved I think it's fine to turn this into a gen discussion. So, um, is it ok for me to admit I've yet to read a single work by Hitchens? I saw his waterboarding thingy. Apart from that though I know almost nothing about the guy.

Hopefully that sorted your confusion.

[-0-]

There's no confusion here. The topic is completely irrelevant.

Pushtrak

[-0-] wrote: »

There's no confusion here. The topic is completely irrelevant.

The topic is about the politics of Hitchens, specifically as it relates to war. In what sense is it irrelevant? You don't find it interesting or worth discussing? Something else?

[-0-]

Pushtrak wrote: »

The topic is about the politics of Hitchens, specifically as it relates to war. In what sense is it irrelevant? You don't find it interesting or worth discussing? Something else?

I should have said the title.

Jernal and co should rename it for it to be worthwhile.

Turtwig

[-0-] wrote: »

I should have said the title.

Jernal and co should rename it for it to be worthwhile.

Yep, done.

I should add you are not obliged to discuss something if you don't wish to but you must make this clear and obvious.
Otherwise other posters are well within their rights to ask you to elaborate.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

You're asking this on a thread about Hitchens? You should probably start another thread about the war to be honest, but anyway, lets move on.

I've said I agree with the man on most things (not all, but a lot), and you ask why I agree with the war on Iraq but say I can't quote Hitchens reasons for that support.

Let me be brutally honest. I did not give a flying fuck about literature, politics, or religion until I read what this man had to say. He inspired me in more ways than one. He inspired me to be an intellectual, to give a fuck.

I agree with the war on Iraq for a lot of reasons, but top of the list is that Sadam was a lunatic who needed to be taken out. The crimes he committed against his own people speak for themselves. I'm confident I don't need to go through them with you, as you seem to have made up your mind already. Given the hindsight we have right now, do I still support it? You're damn right I do and his actions are the reason I'm still in favour of the war.

I was speaking with an Iraqi friend of mine today. He is a Christian, part of some sect that originated in Iraq connected to John the Baptist. He was telling me today about how people are waist-high in their own excrement due to a combination of to heavy rain and corrupt public officials. His brother-in-law was killed by Al Qaeda types for being Christian who according to his killer were too close to the Shia. His familly were given 24 hours to leave their home by armed Sunni gangs.

In short, though no admirer of Saddam Hussein he would crawl back on his hands and knees to see Saddam Hussein back in charge.

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was speaking with an Iraqi friend of mine today. He is a Christian, part of some sect that originated in Iraq connected to John the Baptist. He was telling me today about how people are waist-high in their own excrement due to a combination of to heavy rain and corrupt public officials. His brother-in-law was killed by Al Qaeda types for being Christian who according to his killer were too close to the Shia. His familly were given 24 hours to leave their home by armed Sunni gangs.

In short, though no admirer of Saddam Hussein he would crawl back on his hands and knees to see Saddam Hussein back in charge.

When were you allowed back?

I'm not entering into a conversation with you, despite the lame BS you claim is truth.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

When were you allowed back?

I'm not entering into a conversation with you, despite the lame BS you claim is truth.

What you refer to as BS is real tragedy and suffering in people's lives - something which you and your idol openly "support".

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you refer to as BS is real tragedy and suffering in people's lives - something which you and your idol openly "support".

Very misleading and emotive choice of words. I doubt he actively supports tragedy and suffering.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Because he hated religion, and specifically Islam, there is no other sensible answer. The same reason Sam Harris thinks we should consider nuking "them". He used 9/11 to grab the spotlight and vent his spleen against all things and all people of the Islam faith, ironically taking the side of religious fanatics who believed their God was the right God and a war supporter. Its what allowed him proudly boast that the Koran in an Islamists clothing would not protect them from a cluster bomb, while kids were being blown apart by cluster bombs.

Any chance you give a few (short, if possible) quotes from him to back this up?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a good place to start. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/04/wowie_zahawie.html

[/B]

Anything to show that Hitchens in 2006 (at the time of writing the article you) knew that the Bush claim was false?

Mark Hamill

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What are your reasons for supporting the Iraq War?

I just hope you don't provide a direct quote from Hitchens because his reasons are somewhat farcical. Moreover, his reasons were not the reasons for initiating the Iraq War.

What were his reasons?

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Any chance you give a few (short, if possible) quotes from him to back this up?

To be fair to Harris he hypothesized a primitive tribe like doomsday scenario driven by a theocracy. In which case striking first is the best strategy. Otherwise you just end up with mutually assured destruction and no winner.
He also states how it's morally the wrong choice but if the civilized society is to survive. . .

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you refer to as BS is

.<leave out the personal histrionics please>

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anything to show that Hitchens in 2006 (at the time of writing the article you) knew that the Bush claim was false?

More to the point is there any reason/evidence to believe that the claim was true?

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Very misleading and emotive choice of words. I doubt he actively supports tragedy and suffering.

Well if he <SNIP unnecessary remark> his reasons in supporting the bombing, killing and torturing of people was the people themselves then he should be able to see by now that these same people are far more worse off now than they were under Saddam and therefore any reasons he may have mistakenly had for supporting an illegal war is now gone.

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

.<leave out the personal histrionics please>

This debate is clearly tarnished.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

This debate is clearly tarnished.

You tell me then. Which people in Iraq are better off now than before the illegal invasion and foreign occupation?

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You tell me then. Which people in Iraq are better off now than before the illegal invasion and foreign occupation?

Was there ever an invasion which wasn't illegal? What about Cromwell, and so on?

Anyway, the people who have done well out of this are the ones he didn't have the chance to slaughter. You don't understand what he was like.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still looking for someone else who shares every one of my views. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while though.

20 years, with time off for good behaviour, if you're lucky.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

20 years, with time off for good behaviour, if you're lucky.

I know a lot of people. We'll say no more.

HansHolzel

[-0-] wrote: »

He inspired me to be an intellectual

Very much a work in progress, methinks.

Hotblack Desiato

Sulla Felix wrote: »

We do it all the time. Newton was an aspiring alchemist ffs. Doesn't mean that his other contributions weren't of earth-shattering relevance all the way down to this very day.

We know now that alchemy is nonsense; in Newton's time most of the elements hadn't even been discovered.

Similarly, we didn't have overwhelming evidence to disprove YEC in the past, we do today and one has to wilfully ignore facts, logic and reason in order to support YEC today.

Pushtrak wrote: »

The point is, you can't infer from anyone being wrong on one thing, no matter how big that they are wrong on everything or most things.

See above. I'm not saying it means they're definitely wrong on everything, I'm saying I don't have to care for anything else they have to say. It'd be like listening with rapt attention to someone spinning a story, who you know is a chronic liar. Their particular story may or may not be true, but why waste your time when they have no credibility in your eyes?

It isn't a strawman. If you can't assume that everyone is wrong on most things because they're wrong on one thing, or even many, then why would you assume ahead of time someone is wrong?

That is precisely a strawman, an argument based on a false premise. I never said what you are claiming.

wretcheddomain

[-0-] wrote: »

Let me be brutally honest. I did not give a flying fuck about literature, politics, or religion until I read what this man had to say. He inspired me in more ways than one. He inspired me to be an intellectual, to give a fuck.

Well you're not an intellectual for the reasons outlined below.

By the way, I think you're letting your insatiable appetite for all-things-Hitchens cloud your judgement. I get the impression from your posts that merely because he sounds intelligible making his argument, that therefore it's an intelligible argument. I also get the queasy feeling that you only listen to Hitchens in a debate and not the other side. This would explain quite a lot.

I agree with the war on Iraq for a lot of reasons, but top of the list is that Sadam was a lunatic who needed to be taken out. The crimes he committed against his own people speak for themselves. I'm confident I don't need to go through them with you, as you seem to have made up your mind already. Given the hindsight we have right now, do I still support it? You're damn right I do and his actions are the reason I'm still in favour of the war.

So according to our resident self-proclaimed intellectual, the foremost reason to illegally invade another country is that they have a bad guy in charge.

I'm still waiting for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, when's that going to happen? Oh that's right, they're allies with the US. Doesn't seem like being a 'bad guy' is a good prerequisite?

In addition, let's invade almost all African dictatorships...

[-0-] wrote: »

Was there ever an invasion which wasn't illegal? What about Cromwell, and so on?

Anyway, the people who have done well out of this are the ones he didn't have the chance to slaughter. You don't understand what he was like.

Again, you appear to think that Saddam Hussein is the only 'bad guy' in the world. This is an extremely naive view to take.

In addition, this begs a question, does international law mean anything to you?

Benny_Cake

I find it hard to reconcile the man who rightly called for Henry Kissinger to be tried for war crimes, with the man who became a cheerleader fro the Bush administration's criminal war in Iraq. While it doesn't invalidate any other positions he may have held, it surely tells us something about his character.

[-0-]

HansHolzel wrote: »

Very much a work in progress, methinks.

A work in progress for most people, surely. I said he inspired me to be an intellectual, using the past tense because he is dead, which is perhaps an oversight on my part as I continue to re-read his written words and continue to be inspired on a daily basis. Nice effort though.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Well you're not an intellectual for the reasons outlined below.
By the way, I think you're letting your insatiable appetite for all-things-Hitchens cloud your judgement. I get the impression from your posts that merely because he sounds intelligible making his argument, that therefore it's an intelligible argument. I also get the queasy feeling that you only listen to Hitchens in a debate and not the other side. This would explain quite a lot.

Massive amount assuming going on there, which cannot be taken seriously at face value. You're wrong on all accounts.

So according to our resident self-proclaimed intellectual, the foremost reason to illegally invade another country is that they have a bad guy in charge.

He wasn't a "bad guy". To call him a bad guy is to really miss the point actually and this shows your failure at understand both him and the situation. From the get-go, the actual moment he seized power, he was ruthless. The manner in which he did this dismisses him from ever being a "bad guy", and at the risk of Godwin's Law being thrown at me, puts him over there with Hitler. He was in a room with about 100 of the top members of the Ba'ath Party. He had a man in chains dragged in, a man who's personality was gone. This man outlines his plan to remove the Iraqi republic. He begins to read out the names of people who were with him in this plot. These people are grabbed. The ones who haven't been named yet start freaking out, fall to the ground, praising Sadam. Glory to our leader, and all that jazz. The surviving part of this group are told to go out and shoot the ones who betrayed Sadam. To paraphrase McKeown, this puts him ahead of Hitler and Stalin. People who spilled something on a paper with a picture of this tyrant, were locked up for life along with their families, some of them killed, all of them tortured and while that was going on the members of the family watching would have had to applaud. It's pure sadomasochistic genius.

I'm still waiting for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, when's that going to happen? Oh that's right, they're allies with the US. Doesn't seem like being a 'bad guy' is a good prerequisite?

You say this to me as if I'm the one in charge. I do not condone everything the US has done or will do. I don't condone their allegiance with Israel for example. I side with the Palestinians. Your statement here is pure fluff and pointless. I will say that the US has been getting involved in the affairs of others since The Barbary Wars, which if you've read anything about US history you'll be familiar with.
"From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea"

It's also the reason for that line in the cringe-worthy marine's hymn.

In addition, let's invade almost all African dictatorships...

You say lets invade, as if you're part of some organisation or group with the the power to do so.

Again, you appear to think that Saddam Hussein is the only 'bad guy' in the world. This is an extremely naive view to take.

I outlined your "bad guy" naivety above. I have never, ever, made such claims and for you to come to this conclusion based on the supposed reading of my posts is, quite frankly, bizarre.

wretcheddomain

I'm so glad you wrote that post as it verifies my earlier claim that you would only quote Hitchens. Luckily, I've watched quite a lot of Hitchens videos so I know exactly where you got all this from.

[-0-] wrote: »

He wasn't a "bad guy". To call him a bad guy is to really miss the point actually and this shows your failure at understand both him and the situation. From the get-go, the actual moment he seized power, he was ruthless. He was in a room with about 100 of the top members of the Ba'ath Party. He had a man in chains dragged in, a man who's personality was gone. This man outlines his plan to remove the Iraqi republic. He begins to read out the names of people who were with him in this plot. These people are grabbed. The ones who haven't been named yet start freaking out, fall to the ground, praising Sadam. Glory to our leader, and all that jazz. The surviving part of this group are told to go out and shoot the ones who betrayed Sadam.

6:20 onwards...

I will say that the US has been getting involved in the affairs of others since The Barbary Wars, which if you've read anything about US history you'll be familiar with.
"From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea"

You took all this from your watching of this Hitchens clip with Bill Maher [3:58 onwards]

I'm just glad you've already proven my point.

By the way, an intellectual doesn't repeatedly rehearse and repeat the work of others. They think for themselves. And if you thought for yourself as opposed to holding Hitchens on a faulty pedestal then you'd renounce your earlier support for the war in Mesopotamia.

Nodin

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile the man who rightly called for Henry Kissinger to be tried for war crimes, with the man who became a cheerleader fro the Bush administration's criminal war in Iraq. While it doesn't invalidate any other positions he may have held, it surely tells us something about his character.

He was a journalist with an overly high opinion of himself. I've never understood what he did to be held in such high regard by some.

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm so glad you wrote that post as it verifies my earlier claim that you would only quote Hitchens. Luckily, I've watched quite a lot of Hitchens videos so I know exactly where you got all this from.



6:20 onwards...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14cFmRgTv-c




You took all this from your watching of this Hitchens clip with Bill Maher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBP2Md4-eo8

3:98 onwards...

I'm just glad you've already proven my point.

Dear oh dear. I haven't seen either of those videos - so thanks for that. I'm sure I picked it up from reading him, as he was the reason behind my reading of The Barbary Wars.

This is a thread about the man, is it not? How is quoting him not in line with the topic of discussion? I've said I agree with him on Iraq and I gave my reasons for doing so above. I've also said we can't have this discussion without quoting him. What exactly do not agree with regarding what I posted above? A poster a couple of pages back asked: "Can whoever it is that is complaining about Hitchens please quote or describe the explicit positions of his that you have problem with?", so I'll put this to you bluntly. Prefacing this discussion with your disdain for Hitchens and not allowing anyone to quote him is nonsensical. Your point is rather stupid, actually.

wretcheddomain

This is a thread about the man, is it not? How is quoting him not in line with the topic of discussion? I've said I agree with him on Iraq and I gave my reasons for doing so above. I've also said we can't have this discussion without quoting him. What exactly do not agree with regarding what I posted above? A poster a couple of pages back asked: "Can whoever it is that is complaining about Hitchens please quote or describe the explicit positions of his that you have problem with?", so I'll put this to you bluntly.

Prefacing this discussion with your disdain for Hitchens and not allowing anyone to quote him is nonsensical.

My disdain for Hitchens was 'prefaced' in this discussion? Please provide a quote to verify this accusation.

Your point is rather stupid, actually.

Contrast your quote above with your quote below...[post 72]

This debate is clearly tarnished

Maybe you can see the irony lying within.

The thing is you didn't 'quote' him in my analysis above. You simply referred to your defence of Saddam as a bad man by quoting Hitchens, precisely how I said earlier in the thread you would approach any question.

I caught you out and your knickers are in a permanent twist over it.

EdgarFriendly

As much as I disagreed with Hitchens on the issue of Iraq, I did find that he articulated his points very clearly and cohesively. He was a great orator, and irrespective of what points I agreed or disagreed with him - I always felt that you at least could understand his reasoning behind them. Unlike most people advocating an invasion of Iraq, which was fueled by post-9/11 anger... Hitchens' points had a little more substance behind them.

I think earlier fans of Hitchens were irked by the Iraq thing, as he was seen as a leftist beforehand and had seemingly now broken any bonds with his fellow leftists. The right welcomed his orating abilities, but were suspicious by his liberal leanings on many other issues.

The reality is Hitchens never conformed to the left/right spectrum. He was an individual thinker, and took each issue on it's own merits - instead of taking cues from whatever the popular view was on the left or right. One thing we can say about Hitchens is that he wasn't a populist. I respect him for at least being original. And that's so difficult to find in these days and ages.

Balaclava1991

ThirdMan wrote: »

Hi. I'm looking for a particular obituary that I read in the days after Hitchens' death. It stuck with me because it was the type of obituary that Hitchens himself might have wrote. One of its key points (which might re-jog your memory) is that of all the issues that Hitchens tackled, he got the most important one wrong (Iraq).

No he didn't.

Hitchens supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein because he was genocidal fascist dictator.
The fact that the Americans screwed up post war Iraq does not make the 2003 overthrow a mistake.
If you read or anything Hitchens has written about or spoken about you would know this.
Hitchens believed Iraqis and all the people in the world have as much right as everyone else to live in democracy and freedom.
Hitchens not only supported Iraqi freedom, but he supported a free Kurdistan, a free Iran, a free Palestine and free Syria.
He also opposed the excesses of the Bush administration including waterboarding, torture and murder in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The continued violence and disorder of the Middle East merely proves that the region needs democracy, human rights and freedom.

Hitchens opposed all formers of tyranny - left, right or religious.

He lambasted the cowardice and craven stupidity of the West and particular the Left for failing to support the spread of democracy and freedom to the rest of the world since the 1960s and its moral impotence since 9/11.

He opposed the Vietnam War rightly as an imperial war as young radical.
He had no illusions about American imperialism but ultimately believed American democracy and Western democracy flawed as it is, is worth saving compared to the barbarous alternatives.

I suggest you actually read or listen to Hitchens passionate writings and speeches some time.

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The thing is you didn't 'quote' him in my analysis above. You simply referred to your defence of Saddam as a bad man by quoting Hitchens, precisely how I said earlier in the thread you would approach any question.

Eh... no. It was obvious I was quoting him, in a thread about him. You're trying to say you know my mind, my motives, and that's a dangerous thing to claim. It was extremely obvious that I was quoting him. I never claimed otherwise and I have quoted the exact same thing many times. I agree strongly with it.

I caught you out and your knickers are in a permanent twist over it.

You really didn't, and the fact that you set out to try to do so kind of invalidates any point you're trying to make. Creationism sets out to try to prove something, and therefore is flawed from the start, just as your "point" is also flawed.

I'll say it again - what don't you agree with?

I'll give you an example of how I don't have Hitchens on a mythical pedestal. As I pointed out earlier, I don't agree with him on everything. He loved Eric Blair. I do not, at all. I liked reading his diaries and 1984, but his diaries showed me that he was a racist. He hated the Irish, hated the Jews. He even said he didn't like how Jews smelled. I'm fairly repulsed by the fact that Hitchens either ignores or accepts this. It is not something I can see past.

If you've read Hitch-22, you'll know that he was a snob. His mother wouldn't let him say toilet, he had to say lavatory. That sort of thing irks me, because I grew up in a housing estate. I'm definitely not from that class and the whole idea behind that is retarded.

Hitchens wrote an article about Northern Ireland which I strongly disagree with as well - he claimed the IRA drilled holes into people's kneecaps. This is something which never happened, and if he was alive today I would challenge him on it.

So you're wrong. One of the golden rules of boards.ie is to attack the post, not the poster, so can you go back over my post and highlight the areas you don't agree with? If you're unwilling to do this, discourse with you is pointless.

wretcheddomain

It's nice and sort of annoying to see that you've quietly retreated from my earlier challenge:

[-0-]

Prefacing this discussion with your disdain for Hitchens and not allowing anyone to quote him is nonsensical.

And my challenge...

My disdain for Hitchens was 'prefaced' in this discussion? Please provide a quote to verify this accusation.

Are you willing to furnish the evidence?

[-0-] wrote: »

I'll say it again - what don't you agree with?

So you're wrong. One of the golden rules of boards.ie is to attack the post, not the poster, so can you go back over my post and highlight the areas you don't agree with? If you're unwilling to do this, discourse with you is pointless.

Stop calling him Eric Blair and call him by the name most associated with him, George Orwell. It doesn't make you sound smarter by the way to know and use his first name.

And no, I'm not wrong. On this forum, you can't stop saying RIP Hitch and placing his videos all over the place. You conceded in an earlier post that he's your inspiration to become an intellectual. So by your own admission you hold him in high regard. You may disagree with a few snippets here and there but overall Hitchens has an angelic intellectual quality you dare not depart from.

As for what I disagree with...well, I'm exhausted, as I've already stated it numerous times in my earlier posts: The Iraq War.

The casus belli of the war in Mesopotamia was deliberately misleading and based on false premises. These false premises were known by the British and American administrations prior to their coalition intervention into Iraq. The most obvious of which include:

• Presence of WMD - Hans Blix and his team, and innumerable other sources, perfectly coalesce to the conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq.
  
• Presence of Biological Mobile labs - No such labs were discovered in Iraq.
  
• Acquisition of yellowcake uranium based on an Italo-Niger 'evidence' - This evidence was proven to be a forgery.
  
• Harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists - No such connection can be made and indeed Hussein disliked Al-Qaeda.
  
• Hussein & 9/11 - It's a proven fact that there was no connection between the Hussein administration and the twin-tower attacks. Most of the 19, I think it was 15, terrorists were from Saudi Arabia anyway.

In addition to all this deliberately manifested false propaganda, Bush and Blair decide to violate international law in order to take out Saddam. We all know that the premise that Saddam was a 'bad guy' is a false one. If that were true, then the Bush-Blair Axis would have to invade the Arabian dictatorships and other African potentates as well. The very fact a self-proclaimed intellectual such as yourself believes the Bush-Blair propaganda is quite shocking alone.

Next - the arguments in hindsight. You've previously stated that despite the carnage that resulted from the coalition intervention and the gigantic increase in the multiplication of terrorism in the region, the hundreds of thousands of murdered civilians, the swarming of the country with foreign fighters who all claim their stake to the land, the atrocities committed by the interventionists in Abu Ghraib and other prison systems, the use of chemical weapons by the Anglo-US Axis, and the domestic annihilation of the land - despite all of this, you still think it was a success? I'd hate to see what you believe an interventionist failure would look like then.

This is what I disagree vehemently with Hitchens about - he couldn't see through this and instead viewed it as a war of the civilisations - war between religion and the West. Hence, none of the above could penetrate his perspective as it was already made up in the meantime.

I hope this answers your question.

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's nice and sort of annoying to see that you've quietly retreated from my earlier challenge:

[-0-]

And my challenge...



Are you willing to furnish the evidence?



Stop calling him Eric Blair and call him by the name most associated with him, George Orwell. It doesn't make you sound smarter by the way to know and use his first name.

And no, I'm not wrong. On this forum, you can't stop saying RIP Hitch and placing his videos all over the place.

This is as much of your post as I'll read. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do? You clearly have personal issues with me, which is baffling. Regarding the videos - I spoke with the mods, robindch in particular about that thread and he was in favour of my keeping the thread alive.

We're done here.

wretcheddomain

[-0-] wrote: »

This is as much of your post as I'll read. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do? You clearly have personal issues with me, which is baffling. Regarding the videos - I spoke with the mods, robindch in particular about that thread and he was in favour of my keeping the thread alive.

We're done here.

So not only have you retreated from your prior accusation that I've prefaced this discussion with a "disdain for Hitchens", you're also retreating from my argument that you specifically asked me to state.

Your signature even mentions Hitchens by the way.

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

So not only have you retreated from your prior accusation that I've prefaced this discussion with a "disdain for Hitchens", you're also retreating from my argument that you specifically asked me to state.

Your signature even mentions Hitchens by the way.

I'm not reading your point of view because you're fairly rude and you have personal issues with me. Why should I bother? You've made this personal from the start.
The only thing I'm retreating from is wasting my time with someone who has a personal issue with me. It's not something I care to try to rectify. I'm not going to try to figure out where your issue(s) with me come from. Perhaps you weren't held enough as a child. Who knows? I don't really care to figure it out. I'm too old in the tooth to bother wasting my Sunday afternoon with the likes of you. Enjoy the rest of your bitter existence.

wretcheddomain

[-0-] wrote: »

We're done here.

Make up your mind. :rolleyes:

[-0-] wrote: »

I'm not reading your point of view because you're fairly rude and you have personal issues with me. Why should I bother? You've made this personal from the start.
The only thing I'm retreating from is wasting my time with someone who has a personal issue with me. It's not something I care to try to rectify. I'm not going to try to figure out where your issue(s) with me come from. Perhaps you weren't held enough as a child. Who knows? I don't really care to figure it out. I'm too old in the tooth to bother wasting my Sunday afternoon with the likes of you. Enjoy the rest of your bitter existence.

This is what's known in logic as Ad hominem - attacking the person.

It'll distress you to know that in one of your earlier posts you specifically said:

"Attack the post and not the poster."

I assume then you've renounced that post, or are you a hypocrite?

Until you've invalidated my earlier argument concerning the Iraq War, only several posts ago, then you're treading on very weak ground and we won't be able to take you seriously.

I still think you're annoyed that I caught you out with those quotes & videos. By the way, I'm not actually against those Hitchens videos being there, just they happen to bolster my view that you hold him in high regard, as does your signature.

And how on Earth can I have a personal problem with you when I haven't a clue who you are?

[-0-]

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Make up your mind. :rolleyes:

Are you 14? This is a genuine question.

This is what's known in logic as Ad hominem - attacking the person.

It'll distress you to know that in one of your earlier posts you specifically said:

"Attack the post and not the poster."

I assume then you've renounced that post, or are you a hypocrite?

You made this personal, not me. You attacked me. You're the one who claims to know my mind, the one who is familiar with my posts, the one with a personal issue here, the one making the discussion personal. I've never even seen your name before today, never noticed it at least. You can't say the same about me as you've talked about my posting history.

Until you've invalidated my earlier argument concerning the Iraq War, only several posts ago, then you're treading on very weak ground and we won't be able to take you seriously.

I won't do any such thing because of your behaviour.

I still think you're annoyed that I caught you out with those quotes & videos. By the way, I'm not actually against those Hitchens videos being there, just they happen to bolster my view that you hold him in high regard, as does your signature.

And how on Earth can I have a personal problem with you when I haven't a clue who you are?

You can think that all you like. It doesn't make it true. The fact that you think that just shows your prejudiced behaviour towards me.

Now please, stop trying to drag me back into a discussion with you.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More to the point is there any reason/evidence to believe that the claim was true?

How is that more to the point? Can you answer my question?

robindch

Folks, handbags away, please.

wretcheddomain

robindch wrote: »

Folks, handbags away, please.

I agree - his attacks upon my upbringing as a method of invalidating my strong position against the invasion of Iraq is not a sound way to debate. However, despite these handbags, and given that this debate concerns the Iraq War, I'd like to see his position for the Iraq War, more specifically, against my earlier detailed post. This need not involve attacks as you rightly asserted.

[-0-]

I "attacked" your upbringing solely because of your behaviour towards others, me in particular. It had absolutely nothing to do with your views on Iraq. If you were civil, you would be entitled to a response regarding your position on Iraq, however you lost that right when you revealed prejudice several times.

I'm going to put you on ignore, so we don't have to go through this merry little dance again.

Thanks to the mods for intervening and hopefully the thread can be saved.

wretcheddomain

Alright - is there anyone else on boards.ie that supported the invasion of Iraq?

Turtwig

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Alright - is there anyone else on boards.ie that supported the invasion of Iraq?

Me, heh, you did say supported. :)You'll have to ask past me why though. Cos, I really don't have a clue.

HansHolzel

Slán