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

Pushtrak

How about trying to think about the question of stance on war a little differently? If the correct step was not Iraq or Afghanistan (where honestly I'm more against it on execution than implementation) then what might have been a correct approach? Are the people who are against it opposed on the means by which it was executed or the very fact it was implemented in the first place? What would have been the correct response to 9/11? Going to Saudi Arabia instead as that is where the terrrorists actually were? Would it have been better to see what happened in Afghanistan/Iraq in Saudi? It's up to ye if ye think such questions are worth exploring or not, just wanted to throw some potential ideas out there.

wretcheddomain

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about trying to think about the question of stance on war a little differently? If the correct step was not Iraq or Afghanistan (where honestly I'm more against it on execution than implementation) then what might have been a correct approach? Are the people who are against it opposed on the means by which it was executed or the very fact it was implemented in the first place? What would have been the correct response to 9/11? Going to Saudi Arabia instead as that is where the terrrorists actually were? Would it have been better to see what happened in Afghanistan/Iraq in Saudi? It's up to ye if ye think such questions are worth exploring or not, just wanted to throw some potential ideas out there.

They're very appropriate questions for this discussion.

My own view is quite simple. Wars have causes. These causes need to be a) legal b) honest and c) justified.

The Iraq War violated all three of these criteria multiple times.

If the Iraqi people wish to see the end of Saddam Hussein then they can lead an uprising in much the same way it happened in Iran in 1979 and even some of the Arab Springs of late. The introduction of foreign powers trying to secure the region with compliant satraps in order to keep the oil fields within their jaws is the most contemptible position of all.

The Islamic world proliferates terrorism against the West precisely due to interventions such as this. It's beyond stupid to suggest it would reduce terrorism or the ridiculous and nonsensical campaign of the 'War on Terror'.

The question of Afghanistan is slightly different and I'd agree that its execution is the worst part. But these attacks from harboured terrorists within Afghanistan wouldn't have happened in the first place if not for imperial intrigue in the region particularly over the previous century.

Just some food for thought but open to expanding more on these issues.

Nodin

Afghanistan went ok in the beginning, but they went off into Iraq and took the eye off the ball entirely.

Karl Stein

Pushtrak wrote: »

If the correct step was not Iraq or Afghanistan (where honestly I'm more against it on execution than implementation) then what might have been a correct approach?

How about not toppling Middle Eastern democracies, installing dictators, supporting police states, supporting brutal monarchies, playing countries off each other, providing dictators with WMD and intelligence, imposing sanctions that kill civilians and cement regimes, shielding Israel from international law etc?

How about that?

nagirrac

Nodin wrote: »

Afghanistan went ok in the beginning, but they went off into Iraq and took the eye off the ball entirely.

Iraq was the first priority for the neo-cons, and they got their excuse when 9/11 happened. It is unlikely the American public would have gone along with the "justifications" for the Iraq war if not for 9/11.

Karl Stein

nagirrac wrote: »

Iraq was the first priority for the neo-cons, and they got their excuse when 9/11 happened. It is unlikely the American public would have gone along with the "justifications" for the Iraq war if not for 9/11.

The American public are subject to constant propaganda through the mass media - we all are I guess. I was just reading about Reagan's canonization funeral (linked to earlier in the thread) and not one news outlet stepped 'out of line'.

There was a virtual media prohibition on expressing a single critical utterance about what he did as President and any harm that he caused. That’s not because the elegies to Reagan were apolitical — they were aggressively political — but because nothing undercutting his deification was permitted.

salon.com

It's reminiscent of the funerals of Soviet Dictators.

Pushtrak

Carlos Roca wrote: »

How about not toppling Middle Eastern democracies, installing dictators, supporting police states, supporting brutal monarchies, playing countries off each other, providing dictators with WMD and intelligence, imposing sanctions that kill civilians and cement regimes, shielding Israel from international law etc?

How about that?

So, you are looking at it from a "what not to do approach". Ok, that's fine, but seeing as some response to 9/11 was going to happen, I'm more interested in hearing the types of things that should have been done. No, you don't have any burden in that respect, but it is a discussion, so it would be nice to hear some examples of things from this perspective.

wretcheddomain

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, you are looking at it from a "what not to do approach". Ok, that's fine, but seeing as some response to 9/11 was going to happen, I'm more interested in hearing the types of things that should have been done. No, you don't have any burden in that respect, but it is a discussion, so it would be nice to hear some examples of things from this perspective.

You're missing the point I think.

1. Cause of 9/11 - Intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.

2. 9/11

3. Result - More intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.

It's a nasty circular foreign policy that breeds more terrorism which allows the intervening powers a great excuse to do it even more.

9/11 was a massively liberating factor for the hawks of the US and elsewhere.

Pushtrak

So, aside from turning back the clock, what now?

wretcheddomain

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, aside from turning back the clock, what now?

Well, unfortunately morality features little in political foreign policy manoeuvres.

In the perfect world, the cause of terrorism and instability in the Middle East would need to be curbed. This includes:

1. Not propping up Arabian dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
2. Subjecting Israel to international law instead of shielding them at all costs.
3. Stop invading these countries and let them sort out their own affairs.

This alone would be a good start.

Sulla Felix

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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

I did. It probably won't generate much reasoned discussion though, because I'm an unashamed hegemonist and cultural supremacist who doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

On cluster bombs: "if they are bearing a Koran over their heart, it will go through that too". Cluster bombs are not selective about who they kill, so whether someone has a Koran or not is largely irrelevant.

On the death toll in Fallujah: "not nearly high enough". Estimates of civilian deaths in Fallujah vary, but average around 500 (much higher numbers have been reported, but there is no way to determine how many died, as outlined in the article below - from someone who was actually there).

I can't remember who said it, but a commentator likened Hitch in his last decade to a 19th century conservative who believed the only good wog was a dead wog. The way British conservatives viewed the Irish for example.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8093.htm

Karl Stein

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, you are looking at it from a "what not to do approach". Ok, that's fine, but seeing as some response to 9/11 was going to happen, I'm more interested in hearing the types of things that should have been done. No, you don't have any burden in that respect, but it is a discussion, so it would be nice to hear some examples of things from this perspective.

Hmmm.. this is like taking a history book, tearing out the first three quarters of it, and then asking to debate from chapter 8 on only.

Alternatives here.

Karl Stein

wretcheddomain wrote: »

In the perfect world, the cause of terrorism and instability in the Middle East would need to be curbed.

For US Army Col. Larry Wilkerson (Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Visiting professor at the College of William & Mary, teaching courses on U.S. national security) estimates that in the year 2000 there was in the region of 300 to 500 people in the world with the desire and support/capacity to inflict damage on the US/West; recently Wilkerson estimates that there are now 50,000.

Kinda shatters the myth/excuse that the US invasions were making the world safer for America... what a load of bull**** actually.

Turtwig

Carlos Roca wrote: »

For US Army Col. Larry Wilkerson (Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Visiting professor at the College of William & Mary, teaching courses on U.S. national security) estimates that in the year 2000 there was in the region of 300 to 500 people in the world with the desire and support/capacity to inflict damage on the US/West; recently Wilkerson estimates that there are now 50,000.

Kinda shatters the myth/excuse that the US invasions were making the world safer for America... what a load of bull**** actually.

Maybe they were though. Devils advocate compels me to say that it might be possible that without invasions that number would have been orders of magnitudes higher than 50,000.

Karl Stein

Jernal wrote: »

Maybe they were though. Devils advocate compels me to say that it might be possible that without invasions that number would have been orders of magnitudes higher than 50,000.

Hmmm... that's not really being a Devil's advocate. You're taking a position contrary to the one above based on no evidence whatsoever.

In fact many middle eastern actors who are now enemies of the US/West were furious with Al Queda in the wake of 9/11. Who wants to draw that heat on you?

Turtwig

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Hmmm... that's not really being a Devil's advocate. You're taking a position contrary to the one above based on no evidence whatsoever.

In fact many middle eastern actors who are now enemies of the US/West were furious with Al Queda in the wake of 9/11. Who wants to draw that heat on you?

I'm taking issue with the use of your estimate. This number likely increased, ergo, this was the cause. I'm asking is if it's possible that due to the fractured nature of the world and separations of inequality that number could have been 50,000 anyway (or something else?). Then, from that, I'm asking the obvious, if this kicking the sh*t out of people might have made the number lower than it is now. Normally if somebody is beaten to a pulp they can't mount a physical assault for quite some time. It stands to reason that if you beat the right people to a pulp often enough you keep the overall threat to your own security down. So, to be awfully sadistic, it might have been a case of not enough invasions, or invading the wrong people.

Hopefully, this clarifies the point.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Maybe they were though. Devils advocate compels me to say that it might be possible that without invasions that number would have been orders of magnitudes higher than 50,000.

Why? You have to propose some kind of causality for the numbers to grow.

A good comparison is Northern Ireland and the evolution of the Provisional IRA (sorry for the tangent, but Hitch was an advocate for the unification of Ireland, so he got a lot right;)). In 1969, not alone did the IRA not exist, but Nationalists in Belfast referred to them as "I Ran Away" as there was no one on hand to defend them when they were being burned out of their homes.

Within a year, due to the escalating violence against Nationalists (due to their crime of demanding basic human rights), and entirely as a reaction to it, the Provisional went from a few lads having a chat in bar to arguably the most formidable military resistance group in the history of guerrilla war, and certainly the most formidable given its size.

[-0-]

Jernal wrote: »

I'm taking issue with the use of your estimate. This number likely increased, ergo, this was the cause. I'm asking is if it's possible that due to the fractured nature of the world and separations of inequality that number could have been 50,000 anyway (or something else?). Then, from that, I'm asking the obvious, if this kicking the sh*t out of people might have made the number lower than it is now. Normally if somebody is beaten to a pulp they can't mount a physical assault for quite some time. It stands to reason that if you beat the right people to a pulp often enough you keep the overall threat to your own security down. So, to be awfully sadistic, it might have been a case of not enough invasions, or invading the wrong people.

Hopefully, this clarifies the point.

I dunno. One of the things that drove people into the IRA was beating and killing of Irish people.

Turtwig

[-0-] wrote: »

I dunno. One of the things that drove people into the IRA was beating and killing of Irish people.

Personally - and not being devil advocate here- I believe there's some sort of relationship between fear and retaliation. We know that violence promotes urges of violence in others, especially if they are perceived injustices. However, fear can also paralyse populations. If you get a critical mass of the population to fear repercussion they'll be very unlikely mount a resistance.

That's my hypothesis. Sadly the only way to really test requires um, well, I'm not going to even go there. Although maybe becoming a mod was the first step of the process?

Karl Stein

Jernal wrote: »

I'm taking issue with the use of your estimate. This number likely increased, ergo, this was the cause.

It's not my estimate. It's an estimate that was given to Larry Wilkerson by a CIA intelligence analyst.

I'm asking is if it's possible that due to the fractured nature of the world and separations of inequality that number could have been 50,000 anyway (or something else?).

But what reason would they have to go after the West/US? The invasions gave every lunatic Jihadi from here to eternity a damn good excuse to let loose.

Then, from that, I'm asking the obvious, if this kicking the sh*t out of people might have made the number lower than it is now. Normally if somebody is beaten to a pulp they can't mount a physical assault for quite some time.

This would only be good logic if the US/NATO was systemically exterminating people, Nazi style, so there were none left to take revenge. If someone kicks the **** out of my Brother I'm making a few phone calls and getting revenge. If a drone strike kills my kid I'm going to be looking for an AK47 and a few grenades.

It stands to reason that if you beat the right people to a pulp often enough you keep the overall threat to your own security down.

In war comics that might be true. If you go around beating people to a pulp all you're going to do is make more enemies.

Anyway, this is all moot because first you'd have to provide evidence that the US was actually interested in the security of its wider populace. Do you really think that Neocon chicken-hawks were thinking about the US public when they drew up their plans (long before 9/11)?

Turtwig

Carlos Roca wrote: »

It's not my estimate. It's an estimate that was given to Larry Wilkerson by a CIA intelligence analyst.



But what reason would they have to go after the West/US? The invasions gave every lunatic Jihadi from here to eternity a damn good excuse to let loose.



This would only be good logic if the US/NATO was systemically exterminating people, Nazi style, so there were none left to take revenge. If someone kicks the **** out of my Brother I'm making a few phone calls and getting revenge. If a drone strike kills my kid I'm going to be looking for an AK47 and a few grenades.



In war comics that might be true. If you go around beating people to a pulp all you're going to do is make more enemies.

Anyway, this is all moot because first you'd have to provide evidence that the US was actually interested in the security of its wider populace. Do you really think that Neocon chicken-hawks were thinking about the US public when they drew up their plans (long before 9/11)?

You provided the interpretation of the estimate.

Same reason a lot of people have to for going after the West/Us. The west rule practically everything. It's bearing in mind that they don't even need a valid reason either. They just need a reason that would motivate them ideologically. Doesn't have to be fair or just.

What if US/NATO were systematically crippling the biggest threats to them though? Again, being devil adv, is it not possible that 50,000 mini threats is better than a few severely critical ones with lots of potential and influence?

Or you could beat enough people to a pulp in such a public and brutal fashion that people fear messing with you for fear of their own families and friends. Especially if you provide a 'positive' incentive for them to do otherwise e.g bribes, better quality of life. People generally only care about their own immediate environments. Drug Cartels know this better than anyone?

I have no idea what Neocon chicken hawks actually mean.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

I have no idea what Neocon chicken hawks actually mean.

Someone who is willing to advocate for sending other people to their deaths in war who never served in uniform themselves.

Hitch's public attacks on Cindy Sheehan who had just lost her son in Iraq was nauseating.

Karl Stein

Neoconservatism is basically a belief in the righteousness of the US and in the use of the military to spread democracy and liberal values.

'Chickenhawk' is a pejorative term to describe people who are normally privileged academics/civil servants who are comfortable sending other people's children to places like Iraq knowing they and their children are safe.

Using the term 'chickenhawk' also diminishes the connotative power of the 'hawks versus doves' paradigm in war debates. Comparing these people with Hawks is incredibly generous; 'bunch of fantasist ****' would be more appropriate imo.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Personally - and not being devil advocate here- I believe there's some sort of relationship between fear and retaliation. We know that violence promotes urges of violence in others, especially if they are perceived injustices. However, fear can also paralyse populations. If you get a critical mass of the population to fear repercussion they'll be very unlikely mount a resistance.

That's my hypothesis. Sadly the only way to really test requires um, well, I'm not going to even go there. Although maybe becoming a mod was the first step of the process?

You should find thisi article interesting. I know some people will reject it because it doesn't fit in the idea of religion being the root cause a Muslim will fight but here is an excerpt.

Perhaps the clearest and most succinct explanation of why the war in Afghanistan was failing came inadvertently from General McChrystal himself, in an October 1, 2009, address to the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Although he was speaking about killing insurgents, not civilians, the US military has often made little distinction—and, in either case, the principle of insurgent math applies.


“There is another complexity that people do not understand,” McChrystal said, “and which the military have to learn: I call it ‘COIN mathematics.’ Intelligence will normally tell us how many insurgents are operating in an area. Let us say that there are 10 in a certain area. Following a military operation, two are killed. How many insurgents are left? Traditional mathematics would say that eight would be left, but there may only be two, because six of the living eight may have said, ‘This business of insurgency is becoming dangerous, so I am going to do something else.’ ”



But, McChrystal added, “there are more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends, who do not necessarily think that they were killed because they were doing something wrong. It does not matter—you killed them. Suddenly, then, there may be 20, making the calculus of military operations very different.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/176254/how-us-war-afghanistan-fueled-taliban-insurgency#

pauldla

[-0-] wrote: »

I dunno. One of the things that drove people into the IRA was beating and killing of Irish people.

I was a mere babe in the cradle at the time, but from what I've read, the Bloody Sunday shootings contributed massively to the resurgence of the PIRA. If you've seen the movie 'Bloody Sunday' (with James Nesbitt, incidentally one of the coolest people on the planet), there is a scene near the end that shows young fellas literally queuing to join. Granted, this is dramatic license, but I think it illustrates the point well.

wretcheddomain

The claims here aren't mutually exclusive but the principal factor for the metastasis of terrorism lies with the rise in domestic insurgents from intervention coupled with the wider foreign policy in the region.

[-0-]

pauldla wrote: »

I was a mere babe in the cradle at the time, but from what I've read, the Bloody Sunday shootings contributed massively to the resurgence of the PIRA. If you've seen the movie 'Bloody Sunday' (with James Nesbitt, incidentally one of the coolest people on the planet), there is a scene near the end that shows young fellas literally queuing to join. Granted, this is dramatic license, but I think it illustrates the point well.

I haven't seen the movie, but it doesn't surprise me. The same thing happened in 1916.

[-0-]

I hope this isn't off topic, as it predates the Iraq war which is currently being discussed.

In 1988 the US Navy shot down an Iranian Airbus A300. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, perished. Ranking seventh among the deadliest disasters in aviation history, the incident retains the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

In relation to this incident Bush said "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." on NewsWeek, August 15th 1988.

Here's a list of shootdown incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#September_1993_Transair_Georgian_Airline_Shootdowns

The US has yet to issue an apology and the guy responsible received a medal.

wretcheddomain

[-0-] wrote: »

I hope this isn't off topic, as it predates the Iraq war which is currently being discussed.

It's a very famous event involving the USS Vincennes but I fail to see its connection with Christopher Hitchens or the Iraq War.

Maybe the moderator will change the title again to something like 'Christopher Hitchens, The Iraq War, US Crimes against Humanity, that sort of thing.'

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

I was a mere babe in the cradle at the time, but from what I've read, the Bloody Sunday shootings contributed massively to the resurgence of the PIRA. If you've seen the movie 'Bloody Sunday' (with James Nesbitt, incidentally one of the coolest people on the planet), there is a scene near the end that shows young fellas literally queuing to join. Granted, this is dramatic license, but I think it illustrates the point well.

That was 2.5 years after the IRA reemerged, but I agree it was the watershed moment in Northern Ireland. The British army were originally welcomed by most Nationalists, as they were seen as protectors. Up to January 1972 there was still optimism about a political settlement, but that went out the window on that fateful day. After that many Nationalists saw arming themselves and armed resistance as the only remaining path.

Bloody Sunday is still a bit of an enigma, even after the most recent inquiry. A highly trained disciplined outfit like the Paras do not start shooting indiscriminately for no reason. The profile of those shot (all male, and mostly young males) suggest it was targeted killing, not indiscriminate. The theory that the expectation was to draw the IRA into a battle seems the most logical.

Geomy

pauldla wrote: »

I was a mere babe in the cradle at the time, but from what I've read, the Bloody Sunday shootings contributed massively to the resurgence of the PIRA. If you've seen the movie 'Bloody Sunday' (with James Nesbitt, incidentally one of the coolest people on the planet), there is a scene near the end that shows young fellas literally queuing to join. Granted, this is dramatic license, but I think it illustrates the point well.

I have a book at home, all the stories in it were written by women.

It's still not talked about much but according to the stories, women were tormented by some the security forces back then....

Gordon

nagirrac wrote: »

Post #22, took exactly 3 hours.

I don't see that as salivatory.

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

That was 2.5 years after the IRA reemerged, but I agree it was the watershed moment in Northern Ireland. The British army were originally welcomed by most Nationalists, as they were seen as protectors. Up to January 1972 there was still optimism about a political settlement, but that went out the window on that fateful day. After that many Nationalists saw arming themselves and armed resistance as the only remaining path.

Bloody Sunday is still a bit of an enigma, even after the most recent inquiry. A highly trained disciplined outfit like the Paras do not start shooting indiscriminately for no reason. The profile of those shot (all male, and mostly young males) suggest it was targeted killing, not indiscriminate. The theory that the expectation was to draw the IRA into a battle seems the most logical.

Not really. Standard colonial 'policing' for a few centuries was to shoot a few men of "fighting age" (13 to 60 roughly), beat the crap out of whoever you come across and thus "send a message". This is what was done in Burma, Malayasia, Kenya, Aden and Cyprus by the BA, and it just carried on the practice in NI. You can see it through the first years of deployment in a number of incidents. It was lessened because it was increasingly difficult to keep out the media, particularily so close to home and Western Europe. The notion that this Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy were "aberrations" doesn't stand up to scrutiny in any way shape or form.

Likewise the FRU unit featured in Panorama a few weeks back. A similar unit was deployed in Aden to carry out assasinations under cover of darkness (circa 1966/67) composed of SAS personell, another was formed in Burma for similar purposes. It only becomes some sort of excusable 'not as bad as it looks, few rogues' nonsense when examined in isolation.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

On cluster bombs: "if they are bearing a Koran over their heart, it will go through that too". Cluster bombs are not selective about who they kill, so whether someone has a Koran or not is largely irrelevant.

On the death toll in Fallujah: "not nearly high enough". Estimates of civilian deaths in Fallujah vary, but average around 500 (much higher numbers have been reported, but there is no way to determine how many died, as outlined in the article below - from someone who was actually there).

I can't remember who said it, but a commentator likened Hitch in his last decade to a 19th century conservative who believed the only good wog was a dead wog. The way British conservatives viewed the Irish for example.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8093.htm

Do you have links for these quotes, so I can get the full context of what he was saying?

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have links for these quotes, so I can get the full context of what he was saying?

The attached article by Richard Seymour, written in 2005, is the most extensively referenced piece I have read on Hitch's conversion from left to right (if such a conversion actually happened, as Hitchens himself admitted that he secretly wanted Thatcher to win in 1979, a strange view for a socialist). For those seeking balance from the neo-con view of Hitch (the same neo-cons who hated him prior to 2002) or his own views of himself in his autobiography, Seymour's "Unhitched" is an excellent treatment of his "conversion". It is, like the article, rather vicious, but it treats Hitch in exactly the same manner he treated his opponents.


http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

The attached article by Richard Seymour, written in 2005, is the most extensively referenced piece I have read on Hitch's conversion from left to right (if such a conversion actually happened, as Hitchens himself admitted that he secretly wanted Thatcher to win in 1979, a strange view for a socialist). For those seeking balance from the neo-con view of Hitch (the same neo-cons who hated him prior to 2002) or his own views of himself in his autobiography, Seymour's "Unhitched" is an excellent treatment of his "conversion". It is, like the article, rather vicious, but it treats Hitch in exactly the same manner he treated his opponents.


http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html

This article contradicts your earlier representation of Hitchens quotes. You said he said:

On cluster bombs: "if they are bearing a Koran over their heart, it will go through that too". Cluster bombs are not selective about who they kill, so whether someone has a Koran or not is largely irrelevant.

whereas according to the article you just quoted, he said:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too..."
and
"Cluster bombs are perhaps not good in themselves, but when they are dropped on identifiable concentrations of Taliban troops, they do have a heartening effect."
This very specifically pre-empts the mis-representation you picked up from your article you linked here.

Is this the article on Fallujah that the "death toll not high enough" quote is attributed to? Because I cant find that quote in it.

I think you would have been better off finding the full original transcripts of these quotes before condoning the guy entirely

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you would have been better off finding the full original transcripts of these quotes before condoning the guy entirely

I assume you mean condemning? I don't have to condemn him, he condemned himself. For the record I fully agree with Seymour, who expertly analyzed all available public utterances by Hitchens prior to and post 9/11, and exposes him for the rabid warmonger he became. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I assume you mean condemning?

Woops . Yep.

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't have to condemn him, he condemned himself. For the record I fully agree with Seymour, who expertly analyzed all available public utterances by Hitchens prior to and post 9/11, and exposes him for the rabid warmonger he became. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

How can be sure if he quacked like a duck if you don't actually listen to or read his quacks? I've already shown how one quack you picked up is actually nothing like the way you implied it was.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can be sure if he quacked like a duck if you don't actually listen to or read his quacks? I've already shown how one quack you picked up is actually nothing like the way you implied it was.

Except it is. Hitchens from 2002 onwards portrayed the "war on terror", including the illegal war in Iraq, as a war between the civilized West and the hordes of Islamofascists about to invade us. The quote "bearing a Koran over their heart" only makes sense in the context of this sick minded ideology.

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

Except it is. Hitchens from 2002 onwards portrayed the "war on terror", including the illegal war in Iraq, as a war between the civilized West and the hordes of Islamofascists about to invade us. The quote "bearing a Koran over their heart" only makes sense in the context of this sick minded ideology.

While no admirer of Hitchens, I'm not sure he dragged the "islamofacist" cack into the Iraq debate. Do you have a few articles to back this?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Except it is. Hitchens from 2002 onwards portrayed the "war on terror", including the illegal war in Iraq, as a war between the civilized West and the hordes of Islamofascists about to invade us. The quote "bearing a Koran over their heart" only makes sense in the context of this sick minded ideology.

Or, you know, it makes sense in the context it was written:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too..."
(as opposed to the context you claimed earlier, which is completely different).

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or, you know, it makes sense in the context it was written:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too..."
(as opposed to the context you claimed earlier, which is completely different).

It's quotes like the above that make me consider Hitchens a) A Neocon Lord Haw Haw b) An idiot or c) A crazed atheist fundamentalist who is prepared to use deception to convince the public to support bloody wars to spread "reason" and "rationality" to the "inferiors".

I am absolutely certain that he must know a large amount of cluster bombs, or parts of cluster bombs don't explode. These bombs kill inocent men, women, children of all ages indiscriminately. The US dropped tens of thousands of cluster bombs on Afghanistan, much of it in civilian areas. What kind of a sick **** would consider this as "pretty good"?

And this is ignoring the ridiculous way the US "makes certain" it killing insurgents.

How McChrystal and Petraeus Built an Indiscriminate "Killing Machine"

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3588:how-mcchrystal-and-petraeus-built-an-indiscriminate-killing-machine

Brown Bomber

And here is a source for the Fallujah comment

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

Again, what kind of a sick. bloodthirsty mind is this not enough violence for? 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.

nagirrac

Nodin wrote: »

While no admirer of Hitchens, I'm not sure he dragged the "islamofacist" cack into the Iraq debate. Do you have a few articles to back this?

While he didn't originate the term, he certainly defended its use.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.html

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or, you know, it makes sense in the context it was written:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too..."
(as opposed to the context you claimed earlier, which is completely different).

Do you know how a clusterbomb works? Can you elaborate on how to contain the impact such that you can be certain you're only hitting a concentration of enemy troops?. Only someone who is completely ignorant of the realities of how the war was bring conducted, or more likely did not care, would make such an idiotic comment.

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

While he didn't originate the term, he certainly defended its use.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.html

I didn't say he originated the term.

Nagirrac wrote:

Except it is. Hitchens from 2002 onwards portrayed the "war on terror",
including the illegal war in Iraq, as a war between the civilized West and the
hordes of Islamofascists about to invade us. The quote "bearing a Koran over
their heart" only makes sense in the context of this sick minded ideology.

...to which I replied

While no admirer of Hitchens, I'm not sure he dragged the "islamofacist" cack
into the Iraq debate. Do you have a few articles to back this?

If you'd be good enough as to respond.....

nagirrac

Nodin wrote: »

I didn't say he originated the term.

If you'd be good enough as to respond.....

I didn't say he originated the term either, although "fascism with an Islamic face", which he did originate, is not that distant surely? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the "enemy" in the war on terror and the subset that was the Iraq war were consistently portrayed by the neo-cons as Islamofascists. Although the term predates the post 2001 era, it was not afaik in common usage before 9/11. Hitchens embraced and defended the term as the article I posted demonstrates.

The point is that's how he saw the war. If you like I can update the post and replace "Islamofascist" with "fascism with an Islamic face".

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

I didn't say he originated the term either, although "fascism with an Islamic face", which he did originate, is not that distant surely? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the "enemy" in the war on terror and the subset that was the Iraq war were consistently portrayed by the neo-cons as Islamofascists. Although the term predates the post 2001 era, it was not afaik in common usage before 9/11. Hitchens embraced and defended the term as the article I posted demonstrates.

The point is that's how he saw the war. If you like I can update the post and replace "Islamofascist" with "fascism with an Islamic face".

....I thought I heard the unoiled creak of football posts being dragged laboriously to a new position.

You stated

Hitchens from 2002 onwards portrayed the "war on terror",
including the
illegal war in Iraq, as a war between the civilized West and the
hordes of
Islamofascists about to invade us

Do you have articles to back that up, please. For the third time.

nagirrac

Nodin wrote: »

Do you have articles to back that up, please. For the third time.

For the second and last time, the article I posted earlier, specifically the last paragraph:

"This makes it permissible for me to mention both phenomena in the same breath, and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values".

If you have another interpretation of what Hitchens was saying I would be interested in hearing it, if nothing lese to move the conversation on to the less pedantic. My point is that Hitchens consistently portrayed the war on terror for a decade in terms of "civilization" versus "fascists with an Islamic face". What is he saying in the quote above, other than Islam and Fascism are comparable threats to civilization and civilized values? Never mind the fact that those who attacked the US were a small group of fanatics, following orders from a guy hiding in a cave.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.html