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

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

For the second(.................)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

You're starting to take the piss now.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

And to quote the bit again that contradicts your assessment of him:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . .".

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And here is a source for the Fallujah comment

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

I can't find an original, full, transcript of Hitchens supposed quote. The link you gave here is a source for the M Ludders reference, not the original Ludders article and the Ludders source is not available online (and possibly not the original article the quote from). I want the full original quote where Hitchens talked about the death toll in Fallujah.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

I imagine the same way you can be certain that any explosive you use will only hit those you are aiming at. What has this got to do with your constant misrepresentations of what Hitchens said?

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And to quote the bit again that contradicts your assessment of him:
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . .".

And to quote the bit that you've ignored:

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.

In case you don't understand: even if you are only hitting "enemy troops" cluster bombs don't always explode and kill innocent people for decades after.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And to quote the bit that you've ignored:

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.

In case you don't understand: even if you are only hitting "enemy troops" cluster bombs don't always explode and kill innocent people for decades after.

I've ignored it because it is your opinion. I am only interested in what Hitchens himself said.

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I imagine the same way you can be certain that any explosive you use will only hit those you are aiming at. What has this got to do with your constant misrepresentations of what Hitchens said?

I liked Hitchins, and I am content to say I was not a fan of his views on the Iraq war. I am not commenting on anything he said about cluster bombs, or the death toll in Fallujah, but cluster bombs are bad, really bad.

First off, being certain any explosives you use will only hit those you are aiming at is easier said than done. But, even if you could somehow guarantee that you only hit what you were aiming at, which you can't, cluster bombs present a much more insidious problem, which a couple of posters have already mentioned. The munitions in a cluster bomb never, ever all go off. In some models this is intentional, (at least back in the day when I was a lot more interested in this type of thing) you would have the initial explosions designed to kill immediately, but some of the munitions were designed not to explode, they were designed to act like a spontaneous minefield to hamper rescue attempts or to simply deny access to an area.

I think that type of cluster bomb munition is no longer permissible, but regardless of that, many of the munitions that form part of the cluster bomb may not explode initially due to a fault. These are left scattered around and present an on-going risk to the local population, whether they were valid target in the first place or not. Kids are at particular risk because they don't have the sense to not pick things up and the cluster bomb munitions look interesting.

Sorry about the diversion here, if it is a diversion, bur cluster bombs are really fcuking bad. I am pretty sure there are international move to ban them, but i don't have time to look it up.

MrP

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've ignored it because it is your opinion. I am only interested in what Hitchens himself said.

Opinion? Try fact. You are ignoring fact. Carry on...

Mark Hamill

MrPudding wrote: »

I liked Hitchins, and I am content to say I was not a fan of his views on the Iraq war. I am not commenting on anything he said about cluster bombs, or the death toll in Fallujah, but cluster bombs are bad, really bad.

First off, being certain any explosives you use will only hit those you are aiming at is easier said than done. But, even if you could somehow guarantee that you only hit what you were aiming at, which you can't, cluster bombs present a much more insidious problem, which a couple of posters have already mentioned. The munitions in a cluster bomb never, ever all go off. In some models this is intentional, (at least back in the day when I was a lot more interested in this type of thing) you would have the initial explosions designed to kill immediately, but some of the munitions were designed not to explode, they were designed to act like a spontaneous minefield to hamper rescue attempts or to simply deny access to an area.

I think that type of cluster bomb munition is no longer permissible, but regardless of that, many of the munitions that form part of the cluster bomb may not explode initially due to a fault. These are left scattered around and present an on-going risk to the local population, whether they were valid target in the first place or not. Kids are at particular risk because they don't have the sense to not pick things up and the cluster bomb munitions look interesting.

Sorry about the diversion here, if it is a diversion, bur cluster bombs are really fcuking bad. I am pretty sure there are international move to ban them, but i don't have time to look it up.

MrP

Which is fair enough, and I would agree that Hitchens views re: clusterbombs where, at best, naive and mis-informed, but they are very different to the view that nagirrac was putting forward, that he was happy for innocent people to die, as long as the were muslims.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Opinion? Try fact. You are ignoring fact. Carry on...

Actually, it was, by defintion, opinion. Sure it starts with:
"I am absolutely certain that he..."
It doesn't matter how certain you are of your own opinion, its still your opinion.
Now, if you would like to quote and reference some original articles or transcripts from the man himself supporting your opinion, then I'm all ears.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is fair enough, and I would agree that Hitchens views re: clusterbombs where, at best, naive and mis-informed, but they are very different to the view that nagirrac was putting forward, that he was happy for innocent people to die, as long as the were muslims.

And who are you expecting to die in an Afghan village? Evangelical Christians?

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually, it was, by defintion, opinion. Sure it starts with:
"I am absolutely certain that he..."
It doesn't matter how certain you are of your own opinion, its still your opinion.
Now, if you would like to quote and reference some original articles or transcripts from the man himself supporting your opinion, then I'm all ears.

Yes, that part was my opinion. However, you know as well as I do that this is not the section of my post which I am describing as fact.

Let me spell it out for you - It is a fact that no matter how good your intelligence is for your cluster bomb attacks these bombs will kill and maim many innocent people long after the attack.

Hitchens describes this reality as "pretty good". If you could take your council for the defense hat off for a moment and describe this too it would be nice.

Tony EH

nagirrac wrote: »

I simply can't understand how some people still salivate over Hitchens, especially those who claim an interest in human rights. It is the equivalent of praising a priest who abused children because he gave good sermons.

I used to like Hitch as an intelligent debater in the 90s, he was an excellent thinker and journalist, but frankly had to part company with him after the Iraq invasion. How someone with his intellect fell for the arguments of the most anti-intellectual administration (the neo-cons)in US history is beyond me. I suppose it was down to 9/11 and fueled by his hatred for religion (ironically 9/11 had little to do with religion if you study the profile of those responsible), but sadly for me his voice is now one with Paul Wolfowitz, and all the other fanatics who led the US into a baseless attack of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and represented zero threat to the US or its allies. Hitch is unfortunately forever associated with their lies, and the image of him perched on a tank in Iraq is the one I most remember. Along with all the other so called liberals that sold out and supported the Iraq war, while of course never having to put themselves in harms way. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, thousands of young Americans dead and tens of thousands maimed physically and emotionally, a country destroyed, and we slink out of there a decade later, coincidently on the day Hitch died, a fitting eulogy.

His opinions on the Iraq war will never sit will with those on the left of the political spectrum, but he was an important commentator on current affairs, whether one agreed with his stance, or not.

It's perhaps unfortunate that he will be remembered for his comments on Iraq, however, but I think it's quite wrong to simply write him off for those comments. It still remains strange reading, especially after he dragged Kissinger over such hot coal for his warmongering.

As for "It is the equivalent of praising a priest who abused children because he gave good sermons", I would have paid money to have seen his answer to such a line.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, that part was my opinion. However, you know as well as I do that this is not the section of my post which I am describing as fact.

Let me spell it out for you - It is a fact that no matter how good your intelligence is for your cluster bomb attacks these bombs will kill and maim many innocent people long after the attack.

Hitchens describes this reality as "pretty good". If you could take your council for the defense hat off for a moment and describe this too it would be nice.

Hitchens describes killing concentrations of enemy troops as "pretty good.":
"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..."

Naive? Yes. Mis-informed? Sure.
Happy that innocent people might die? Nothing in that quote, supports that assertion in anyway. Posting your opinion of what he hsould or shouldn't know is irrelevant, unless you have full first-hand quotes that show that he knew this and didn't care.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And who are you expecting to die in an Afghan village? Evangelical Christians?

I gather that Hitchens expected enemy troops to die, thats what is said in his quotes.

wretcheddomain

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I gather that Hitchens expected enemy troops to die, thats what is said in his quotes.

But that's not realistic.

Who are these enemy troops anyway? Do they wear a badge saying 'enemy troop'? Does every single fighter wear a standardised uniform reflecting their background? Of course not.

It's inevitable in a war such as this that quite a lot of civilian deaths will result. It's naive and ignorant to assume otherwise.

nagirrac

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's inevitable in a war such as this that quite a lot of civilian deaths will result. It's naive and ignorant to assume otherwise.

Except in comic books and Hollywood movies, where only the bad guys are killed:rolleyes:.

I actually have a lot for empathy for the troops sent on wars like this by morons who never donned a uniform themselves. It is literally impossible to fight and especially win a war against a guerrilla style enemy. Eventually it reduces to targeting and killing civilians as they are indistinguishable from the enemy, and hopefully if you kill enough of them you will destroy the enemy's morale. Unfortunately it never works out that way, as those fighting on their home soil know the terrain and have great incentive to stay in it for the long haul (West Cork, Vietnam spring to mind).

Mark Hamill

wretcheddomain wrote: »

But that's not realistic.

Who are these enemy troops anyway? Do they wear a badge saying 'enemy troop'? Does every single fighter wear a standardised uniform reflecting their background? Of course not.

It's inevitable in a war such as this that quite a lot of civilian deaths will result. It's naive and ignorant to assume otherwise.

Which I agreed with already. You might even go as far as to say that Hitchens was lying to himself about civilian casualties, as the elimination of the enemy was what was important to him. But that is not nearly the same as to say that he was happy for innocent people to die, which is what is being claimed.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hitchens describes killing concentrations of enemy troops as "pretty good.":
"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..."

Naive? Yes. Mis-informed? Sure.
Happy that innocent people might die? Nothing in that quote, supports that assertion in anyway. Posting your opinion of what he hsould or shouldn't know is irrelevant, unless you have full first-hand quotes that show that he knew this and didn't care.

Of course he knew this. He has written and researched extensively on Laos and Cambodia in his tearing apart of Kissinger.

It is inconceivable that any author could have published (to much acclaim) on these secret bombing campaigns and be oblivious of the horrendous and long-lasting effects of cluster bombs.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course he knew this. He has written and researched extensively on Laos and Cambodia in his tearing apart of Kissinger.

It is inconceivable that any author could have published (to much acclaim) on these secret bombing campaigns and be oblivious of the horrendous and long-lasting effects of cluster bombs.

You're crediting him with a consistent intellectual rigour he didn't have.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course he knew this. He has written and researched extensively on Laos and Cambodia in his tearing apart of Kissinger.

It is inconceivable that any author could have published (to much acclaim) on these secret bombing campaigns and be oblivious of the horrendous and long-lasting effects of cluster bombs.

Like I said to wretcheddomain in the post right before yours:
"You might even go as far as to say that Hitchens was lying to himself about civilian casualties, as the elimination of the enemy was what was important to him. But that is not nearly the same as to say that he was happy for innocent people to die, which is what is being claimed. "

wretcheddomain

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Like I said to wretcheddomain in the post right before yours:
"You might even go as far as to say that Hitchens was lying to himself about civilian casualties, as the elimination of the enemy was what was important to him. But that is not nearly the same as to say that he was happy for innocent people to die, which is what is being claimed. "

What we can infer from that is that he may not have been happy with these civilian deaths but, at minimum, must have been indifferent. This is especially true as what you've said can be interpreted as "for the greater good", which if understood in this way, must mean that these deaths are necessary.

Mark Hamill

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What we can infer from that is that he may not have been happy with these civilian deaths but, at minimum, must have been indifferent. This is especially true as what you've said can be interpreted as "for the greater good", which if understood in this way, must mean that these deaths are necessary.

Sure, maybe. Did anyone ever ask him this in interviews? How did he respond?

Sulla Felix

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What we can infer from that is that he may not have been happy with these civilian deaths but, at minimum, must have been indifferent. This is especially true as what you've said can be interpreted as "for the greater good", which if understood in this way, must mean that these deaths are necessary.

I don't think that's a given. We all know the levels of compartmentalization and doublethink that people are able to enter into in order to free their conscious mind of guilt and troubled thoughts.
Just because Hitchens manages to escape one manifestation of that condition (religion) doesn't mean he was immune, or that he didn't fall prey to it in another area.
He was a flawed man. He revelled and celebrated in it, just as he celebrated other flawed men, who rose above such hindrances to nonetheless act as moral forces in the world. Now whether or not he achieved that status, I think it's certainly something he strove for.