1. Comment #52170 by Stella on June 26, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Yes.

Other Comments by Stella

2. Comment #52172 by Wrought on June 26, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Yes, indeed.

Other Comments by Wrought

3. Comment #52181 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm

You can easily forget how unusual it is to have as much freedom as we do in the UK. We really are very lucky. It may seem the obviously right way to go about things, but there isn't anywhere near as much freedom in the States, in Australia, in many European countries, not to mention the Middle East, China, India etc. etc.

Freedom is a good thing.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

4. Comment #52186 by IanRobinson on June 26, 2007 at 12:45 pm

The freedom we have in the UK (and in other countries) was hard won over many years by many people. We need to make sure we keep it. That freedom includes the right to believe nonsense such as religion, but it also gives us the same freedom to say it's nonsense without fear of physical attack.

Other Comments by IanRobinson

5. Comment #52190 by nickthelight on June 26, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I'll wave my scroll and cheer to that. "here here"

Other Comments by nickthelight

6. Comment #52194 by Lil_Xunzian on June 26, 2007 at 12:56 pm

As an American, I'd like to make the following observation. I live in the so-called "freest country in the world," though I think Peter Singer is right to dispute that claim. In any event, my basic attitude goes something like this: "freedom" is basically a species of the genus "power" (I think it's no accident that the Mandarin word for "rights," as in human rights, is "quan" with a rising tone; quan means (political) power, much like the French "pouvoir," implying that within the discourse of rights-talk, quan refers to the political power pertaining to that group or individual (nevermind China's very alien notion of rights)). As a species of power, freedom can be abused like any other form of power, just as power corrupts, so can freedom. Thus, noting the abuses of freedom enjoyed by religious fundamentalists, I think it's fair to conclude that freedom is only a good thing for good people--that is, people who aren't corrupted by their freedom.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

7. Comment #52203 by MIND_REBEL on June 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Yes, scary people. Most people can't deal with the fact that Muslims want to destroy the West. If they don't like it, leave, say they support terrorism, we'll make you leave.

For being a religious wackjob, GW Bush was willing to face the Muslim threat before most people even knew who Christopher Hitchens even was. History is proving him and the war correct.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

8. Comment #52211 by Phaderus on June 26, 2007 at 1:31 pm

"W" may be willing to face the muslim threat, but for all the wrong reasons and most definitely, in the wrong way.

His excuses for invading Iraq have, predictably, proven false; resulting in total distrust and hatred from the rest of the world. His total failure at achieving any significant objectives proves that he doesn't know what he is doing, even if the original plan was correct.

History is proving him inept, and his justification and execution of the war a complete failure.

Other Comments by Phaderus

9. Comment #52214 by MIND_REBEL on June 26, 2007 at 1:36 pm

The excuses were based on the best information at the time. And lets not forget that the democrats supported the war as well as the UK. And the reason why you're safe is because people like GWB have the stones to stand up to bullies that want to destroy your world in the name of religion.

It's one thing to talk tough, it's another thing to stand up and actually do something.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

10. Comment #52216 by maton100 on June 26, 2007 at 1:49 pm

All hail Captain Rage!

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

11. Comment #52220 by Eric Blair on June 26, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Opposing the invasion of Iraq does not mean being "soft" on terrorism. It means picking better times and places to take a stand, where there's a reasonable chance of being able to follow through to the bitter end.

Guts is good, brains better.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

12. Comment #52225 by Alkal on June 26, 2007 at 2:14 pm

The interesting thing is that this guy is good with his "rage". It takes a lot of political and oter educational attainment to read and understand Rushdie...And folk like this guy here like bieng all sound and fury...

Other Comments by Alkal

13. Comment #52226 by Alkal on June 26, 2007 at 2:15 pm

The sad thing however is that Hindu hardliners will take this and use it to justify their anti-Muslim stance. Hate begetting more hate...

Other Comments by Alkal

14. Comment #52231 by MartinSGill on June 26, 2007 at 2:33 pm

It's nice to see Christopher echoing my own blog post of a couple of days ago (http://blog.martinsgill.co.uk/archives/53).

While all I have to work with are my principles, Chris can lend considerably more weight to his words simply by virtue of the fact that he has been there, and seen what it's really like.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

15. Comment #52235 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 2:35 pm

I was very glad Rushdie got recognised, not that I care about royalist affectations but the guy's a great writer with important things to say, and he's paid a heavy price for saying them.

The thing that scares me is this. Politicians don't do this kind of thing randomly, and they don't normally do them for principles either. It was predictable that the Iranian government would say vile things, and someone in the British government decided this would be a good time for them to do it. I wonder what they're laying the ground for?

Other Comments by jonecc

16. Comment #52238 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Hitchens may well be right that "rent a mob" is alive and well in Pakistan, together with the requisite cameras. What should be remembered is that religion, of whatever kind, is often used as an excuse for appalling acts of. If Islamics also have political objectives, (as do Christians), they can disguise their objectives in the name of their religion. The various conflicting interests of the ruling classes of the world lead them to use whatever propaganda weapons they can, including religion, nationalism, democracy, language, etc.etc.

During the 2nd world war, the Christian bishops on both sides in Europe, were willing to bless the bombs that murdered many, as long as they dropped on the other side. So much for the Christians turning the other cheek.

Like nationalism of all kinds, religion is a poison of the mind.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

17. Comment #52244 by Rick Stromoski on June 26, 2007 at 2:57 pm

>>>And the reason why you're safe is because people like GWB have the stones to stand up to bullies that want to destroy your world in the name of religion.

Oh spare me the revisionist history....911 was a criminal action and should have been treated as such. Instead , this administration preyed on the bloodlust of the American people and invaded a country that had nothing to do with it .

It's as if we discovered that the Mafia killed Kennedy and then invaded Italy in retribution.

Other Comments by Rick Stromoski

18. Comment #52245 by MIND_REBEL on June 26, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Who mentioned 9/11? I didn't. Saddam was evil, and need to be removed. Lay off the straw men.

You sound upset upset that freethinkers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have broken with the tradionial liberal dogma and are actually thinking for themselves instead of just parroting everything thier professors told them.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

19. Comment #52273 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm

MIND_REBEL:

The reason why Saddam Hussein enjoyed so many years in power is that the USA propped him up for the first half of his reign. The Taliban only managed to take control of Afghanistan after being armed by the CIA to fight the Russians. The links with Pakistan were established during those years.

Both did just as many evil things in those years, but they did them with the support of the US, who helped them take out their opponents, both religious and secular.

US foreign policy is like the foreign policy of any government in an industrialised state. It mainly seeks to secure markets and resources for its backers.

Other Comments by jonecc

20. Comment #52285 by ranjani on June 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

MIND_REBEL:
Just to set the record straight, Sam Harris is a strident opponent of the Iraq War. He has said so very clearly in many of his talks.
Ranjani

Other Comments by ranjani

21. Comment #52309 by Lauregon on June 26, 2007 at 5:19 pm

The excuses were based on the best information at the time. - Mind Rebel

Uh, no. The weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs. Not liking their conclusions, Bush pulled them out then launched shock and awe warfare on the entire nation of Iraq.

Saddam was evil, and need to be removed. Lay off the straw men. - Mind Rebel

Men being evil isn't sufficient cause to launch shock and awe warfare against an entire nation of already beseiged people.


It's one thing to talk tough, it's another thing to stand up and actually do something. - Mind Rebel

It's one thing to talk tough. "Bring 'em on," comes to mind. It's quite another to do something wise, principled, reasoned, and intelligent.

Other Comments by Lauregon

22. Comment #52311 by Martha on June 26, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Lil_Xunzian on June 26, 2007 at 12:56 pm

"As an American, .....
Thus, noting the abuses of freedom enjoyed by religious fundamentalists, I think it's fair to conclude that freedom is only a good thing for good people--that is, people who aren't corrupted by their freedom."

Well said. That's the problem with MOST of us in the so-called Free/Liberal/Civilised West: we don't know how lucky we are. We take our liberties for granted, and that's because our experience (of life) is not very well integrated.

Therefore, its no accident that Tony Blair is so enthralled by George W Bush - and vice-versa: the Sadist needs the Masochist, but which one is which??? History is indeed repeating itself...

Other Comments by Martha

23. Comment #52312 by Martha on June 26, 2007 at 5:35 pm

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do."

Well then Christopher, why did you become a citizen of the USA, if you don't like Rage Boys - like George W Bush?

Other Comments by Martha

24. Comment #52318 by mithraman on June 26, 2007 at 5:54 pm

George Bush - Rage Boy? More like Idiot Boy.

Other Comments by mithraman

25. Comment #52337 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Again,

I just want to come out and join in the atheists for all out war - even in Iraq - corner. =)

Sorry, I really think you anti-war atheists have it all wrong. Atheists should be the first ones to support not only the current war in Iraq, but potential war in other parts of the "Muslim World" as well.

Please, be honest: if the "Muslim World" was the "Christian World", we'd be all over for breaking it apart with military force to defend ourselves against fundamentalist whackjobs. I really think part of the problem of Atheism is that it stems from a very, very, leftist culture which by and large I agree with, but also has terrible faults as well. And people like Chris Hitchens have pointed it out, and so few on this side are willing to accept the truth of the way the world happens to be.

Atheism is not dogmatic. Leftism is dogmatic - as is any "party" or "philosophy" which one can adhere to. Saddam Hussein was not "secular" in terms of Western standards. He was "secular" in terms of his neighborhood's standards. But you know, and I know, that his was a religiously inspired nutjob dictatorship - claiming the direct inheritance of Mohammed, claiming the messianic vision of "liberating" Jerusalem for Islam, claiming the right to fund suicide bombers of a disgusting religious ilk, and putting "Allahu Ackbar" on the flag of the country.

How many here think that putting "In God We Trust" on the flag of the United States is a "secular" move? Even when done for political purposes? Are you going to tell me that this is a "secular" thing to do?

Then stop using different standards for the "Muslim World". There should be no "Muslim World". The world is a dirty and brutal place, wishing well gets you nowhere, and you have to fight to change it.

Sorreee...this Atheist isn't buying the "all for peaceful marches" line at all. =)

Other Comments by Summer Seale

26. Comment #52338 by waxwings on June 26, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Odd to see such a blend of lucid rationalism and neocon insanity in this piece. The Sunni insurgency is 'the soft name for al qaida' now?

It appears from this that we may count Christopher Hitchens among the recently lamented forty percent of Americans still mistakenly under the impression that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11.

Other Comments by waxwings

27. Comment #52339 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Re Comment #52181 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm: "You can easily forget how unusual it is to have as much freedom as we do in the UK. We really are very lucky. It may seem the obviously right way to go about things, but there isn't anywhere near as much freedom in the States, in Australia, in many European countries, not to mention the Middle East, China, India etc. etc."

As an Australian, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in your comment. How is Australia "less free" than the UK?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

28. Comment #52347 by John P on June 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm

These people need more opium.

http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/the-drugs-arent-working

Other Comments by John P

29. Comment #52349 by krogercomplete on June 26, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Martha,

Well then Christopher, why did you become a citizen of the USA, if you don't like Rage Boys - like George W Bush?

Say what?

Other Comments by krogercomplete

30. Comment #52350 by krogercomplete on June 26, 2007 at 8:18 pm

As an Australian, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in your comment. How is Australia "less free" than the UK?

Wondering the same thing (as a US citizen).

Other Comments by krogercomplete

31. Comment #52351 by Atticus_of_Amber on June 26, 2007 at 8:28 pm

I can actually see actually someone arguing that the US is more free than the UK, given the US's constitutional limitations on government (the Bill of Rights, etc). I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but I can see the argument. But the other way around? I just do see the argument.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

32. Comment #52352 by hightrekker on June 26, 2007 at 8:32 pm

The sad truth is that the level of ignorance and superstition in the USA has made "freedom" and "democracy" impossible. Without a well informed public, democracy is impossible.
As far a Saddam and the USA, a quick history:
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Other Comments by hightrekker

33. Comment #52355 by ranjani on June 26, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Summer Seale
I pose this question to you out of genuine curiosity and, especially after having read the article http://richarddawkins.net/article,1333,Journey-Into-Islam,Tony-Blankley-Huffington-Post

which is on this website. Do you propose that the US attack all countries that have a muslim majority or even a country like India which has a Hindu majority but still has the third largest muslim population in the World under the guise of --- what exactly??? A preemptive obliteration? The article above is one of the bleakest reviews I have read so far, but do you honestly think that bombing Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh or India which house the biggest percentage of all Muslims in the world is the solution? Standing up to and vociferously condemning extremist stands is a good first step. Beyond that, I have no idea. But I hope you are not advocating wholesale mass slaughter.

Other Comments by ranjani

34. Comment #52356 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Again,

Everyone knows we supported Saddam. This is news? Ok, let me pretend I'm simply *amazed* at this revelation and go:

OMGAWD No WAY!!! We DID??? OMG!!!

Okay, now that's out of the way. So...the fact that we supported Saddam in the past means...we had absolutely zero duty to "rectify" our earlier misdeeds and remove him? Is that your logical response to a serious screwup?

Pardon me, it isn't mine. I was taught, when I was very young, to fix my very bad mistakes. Supporting Saddam was a very bad mistake. Even the left agrees that it was a bad mistake. But what doesn't follow in that argument is the conclusion that, since we supported Saddam in the past, we should do nothing about it in the present.

I thought us Atheists based our thoughts on logical reasoning? Yes? =)

Summys <3

Other Comments by Summer Seale

35. Comment #52357 by grolaw on June 26, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Rage Boy needs IM neurolyptics. Let's not forget to protect him from EPS with an anticholinergic drug, too.

Other Comments by grolaw

36. Comment #52358 by Zaphod on June 26, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Freedom of speech is paramount. If in my life I offend anyone with what I say, TOUGH!

No one has to listen to what anyone else has to say. You can stop reading, switch off the TV or walk away.

I will not be silenced by anyone, especially bigots with no moral leg to stand on.

END OF RANT.

Other Comments by Zaphod

37. Comment #52362 by diquea on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 pm

"This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?"


This is ridiculous. He is acting like this all happened in a vacuum. Assuming that there was/is Jihadist rhetoric pumping out of Iraq... um, no shit. You invade a Muslim country, Bomb it for 10 years, and then invade and occupy it again, of course there is going to be Jihadist rhetoric.

"How are we to know what will incite such rage?" Is he really asking this? We know what incites the rage from which the more recent terrorist attacks came. Having western troops occupying Muslim holy land, bombing their countries, and installing dictators. The same man who planned the attacks in the US in 2001, told us his reasons for it back in '96, I believe.

We invade, occupy and bomb their lands, motivating jihadist efforts against us, and then use those jihadist attacks to justify our occupation and bombing of their lands.

Other Comments by diquea

38. Comment #52363 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Ranjani,

I don't actually propose bombing everyone...no. =)

But, you see, coming from the left *and* the right....and being an Atheist, I do see the serious flaws in both sides. First of all, the enemy knows we won't go bombing everyone. They will, and they're counting on our moral superiority *not* to do it. And because they know it, they're going to win. You're not talking about a moral debate here, you're talking about a *war*. That's where the left fails, and it fails *badly*. They don't recognize that it is a *war*. And if they do, they do not recognize what *war* means. They discount everything we do in self-defense, or hell I'll admit it, an offensive strike, as a blow against human rights.

Well, I'm sorry, war is the ultimate blow against human rights. Face it, there *is* no "humane war". That's a load of crap. Admit it, and move on. War is the ugliest of things, but it is sometimes a necessary thing. If you can't accept that, then you can't accept the way the world is - logical conclusions about religion notwithstanding. If you can't accept that, you're being dogmatic to a utopian viewpoint. That's my real prob with the left today.

Imagine Saddam had been a dictator, the way he was, in "The Christian World" - see how offensive that term is? It used to be the term we used for the West, but we fixed that little problem with a *lot* of bloodshed because, quite frankly, we thought it was worth it. But just imagine it. You think, for one minute, that any of you, seeing a dictator claiming to be the *direct* descendant of Jesus, claiming the annihilation of an entire people to "liberate" a city for a holy book, claiming the right to fund suicide bombers of abortion clinics, and claiming the right to sew "God Is Great" on our flag....do you *think* for one minute that people here would not want to see him removed post-haste?

Be real. Be *honest* with your viewpoints. You know, and I know, that almost *everyone* here sees Christianity differently than they see the "Muslim World". It's racist. It's sad because it is so obvious. I know, as we all know, that if you had seated Saddam in the West, everyone here would be enraged to the point of calling directly for his ouster. Period. End of discussion.

And then look at the reaction of the left to the war in general. I don't mean just in Iraq but to the entire situation. It is disingenuous to the core. There is a reason why the armed forces don't *trust* the left. Let's take a look, shall we?

Iraq: Oh, "secular" dictator! We shouldn't have attacked. He wasn't the enemy.

Afghanistan: Oh, we're screwing up so badly. Let's just pull out and stop supporting a "puppet" democracy which can't actually control anything out of Kabul.

Iran: Well, yes, they're religious fanatics at the top but we believe in the people. They'll slowly change the regime (how long do you want us to wait?) and we should stay out of it and talk to the bad guys in power.

Syria: Well, we should just butt out of their business and get to the negotiating table. Then they'll just listen to us as equals. Let's not attack them for supporting terrorism.

Saudi Arabia: Oh well, they're extremists and most of their countrymen hate our guts, and they incite violence all over the world, but can you *imagine* the effect of attacking Saudi Arabia? How that would *inflame* the Muslim World? (Again with that term and "respect"....when did Atheists suddenly care about inflaming the "Christian World"? Or does the "Muslim World" get a free pass? Is that how it works?)

Pakistan: Well, he's a dictator, we shouldn't be doing business with him (but it's okay to talk to Syria, Iran, etc..). We don't know what to do about Pakistan, but we wish we could do something. What can we do? No idea. Leftists haven't given us any practical solutions on the matter yet.

So...exactly *when* is it okay to fight back, and against whom? Is there *anyone* out there that people on this board think we should be at war with? We have Jihadis blowing themselves up all over the world in the name of their pathetic god, and everyone here, who *should* be outraged to frigging hell...is excusing it as some sort of cultural quirk.

So, aside from attacking the bad guys, then what *is* your solution? I haven't heard a *single* practical one from the left yet. All I hear is what we shouldn't do, and whom we *shouldn't* fight. That's not a solution. It's a war. Bombs killing people means *war*. WHAT is your solution for victory, please?

Hurry, lots of people are dying and the clock is ticking, thank you. =)

Summys <3

Other Comments by Summer Seale

39. Comment #52368 by BT Murtagh on June 26, 2007 at 9:51 pm

MIND_REBEL says:

And the reason why you're safe is because people like GWB have the stones to stand up to bullies that want to destroy your world in the name of religion.

Not only am I not 'safe' in an absolute sense, I would assess my safety as being considerably lessened by Mr. Bush's choices. While some Muslims certainly have always desired to 'conquer' America with Islam, the ones who would do so with violence were a small and dwindling minority before we attacked Iraq, while now their ranks are rapidly growing.

He is, in any event, someone who also wishes to alter my world beyond recognition in the name of his religion, which makes him at best a 'lesser Satan' and one who is making much more rapid headway in his abhorrent vision than any Muslim terrorist was ever likely to in my lifetime.

Finally, I would question what 'stones' it takes to send others into battle to die. Mr. Bush has not suffered a damn thing from his war, and has gathered all manner of (hopefully short-term) gains from it. Spare me the 'stones' and deliver me a leader with more concern for the consequences of his policies for the country and the world.

Summer Seale says:

But what doesn't follow in that argument is the conclusion that, since we supported Saddam in the past, we should do nothing about it in the present.

Neither does it follow that preemptive war against Iraq was an intelligent or helpful thing to do. It didn't rectify our earlier misdeeds, it simply added an arguably worse set of misdeeds on top of them. Certainly the poor consequences of the war in Iraq, its cost in blood and treasure and opportunities lost, far outweigh those of the earlier errors, not only for us but arguably for the people of Iraq and for the world at large.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

40. Comment #52370 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 10:04 pm

BT Murtagh,

I'd reply to your post, but I actually wrote a huge post just above yours which I would kindly like somebody to comment on point by point. My point stands because my entire constructed argument stands on many points - not just on one which you think you have logically refuted. And anytime I bring up this set of arguments, nobody on the left has the guts to reply in full. =)

Either you agree we're at war, and wish to act, or you don't. Is there anyone you would currently go to war with to fight jihadis? Or...should we just unleash the terrible powers of the police force upon them and arrest them all with plastic ties? =)

Summys <3

Other Comments by Summer Seale

41. Comment #52371 by Summer Seale on June 26, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Oh and one more thing: if you think you are ever safe in the world, you are sadly mistaken. You know it and I know it. You're never "safe". I'm not only an Atheist and a pro-war person, I also happen to think that firearms in my hands are a good idea. I accept the reality of the world, and I am (again) not tied to any utopian dogmatic leftist theory about what the world should ideally be like. =)

Other Comments by Summer Seale

42. Comment #52410 by ricey on June 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

Reading some of the hysterical, nay, apocalyptic comments on this discussion, it is interesting to note that not all "rage-boys" are confined to the middle-east or to fundamentalist Islam.

And not all "nut bags" are religious.

Other Comments by ricey

43. Comment #52418 by fides_et_ratio on June 27, 2007 at 2:06 am

Some good points here. Shame he has to dig out the Pope though. He's obviously just read a report of His Holiness' speech, rather than the speech itself. Probably a trait shared with rage-boy et al, selectively informing oneself to suit one's agenda.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

44. Comment #52423 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 2:16 am

Summer Seale, I didn't refute your point, I added to it. I agree that the conclusion "we should do nothing" does not follow from our prior support of Saddam; however, as I said, "we should launch a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq" doesn't follow either.

That's a false duality, and another false duality should be dealt with before I reply to your longer post: 'the left' and 'the right' are directions on a vastly oversimplified spectrum, not a pair of zombified hordes. The labels are a currency too common to completely discard easily, but they can be massively misleading (and are often used to deliberately so mislead).

But, you see, coming from the left *and* the right....and being an Atheist, I do see the serious flaws in both sides. First of all, the enemy knows we won't go bombing everyone. They will, and they're counting on our moral superiority *not* to do it. And because they know it, they're going to win. You're not talking about a moral debate here, you're talking about a *war*. That's where the left fails, and it fails *badly*. They don't recognize that it is a *war*.

And if they do, they do not recognize what *war* means. They discount everything we do in self-defense, or hell I'll admit it, an offensive strike, as a blow against human rights.

To be more specific, there are many on 'the left' who do regard this struggle as a war, and use the term war, and there are indeed some few on the 'right' who question the use of the term war and consider it misleading. I don't know of anyone, at any point on the political spectrum, who regards it simply as a moral debate, although there are many all across it, from 'left' to 'right', who do see a moral debate as being inextricably interwoven into the causes, proper conduct of and potential solution to the struggle.

I for one do not have an issue with using the word war; I think the word is often misused in rhetoric ("War on _____" == increased funding) but it's justified here. However, you're missing an adjective or two; this is an asymmetrical, guerrilla warfare we're having here, and if there's one thing that the history every war of that type has shown, it is that conventional military attacks alone don't win them, and can actually be counterproductive if badly applied.

The case in point is that the military attack on Iraq has made the war against al-Quaida orders of magnitude more difficult.

Well, I'm sorry, war is the ultimate blow against human rights. Face it, there *is* no "humane war". That's a load of crap. Admit it, and move on. War is the ugliest of things, but it is sometimes a necessary thing. If you can't accept
that, then you can't accept the way the world is - logical conclusions about religion notwithstanding. If you can't accept that, you're being dogmatic to a utopian viewpoint. That's my real prob with the left today.

I accept that just fine. I also recognize the reality that every noncombatant Iraqi killed by American ordnance radicalizes a dozen relatives, and in an atmosphere soaked with religion, that means 'Iraqi' becomes bound up in 'Muslim' and 'American' bound up in 'Christian' and there's your jihad.

I am not speaking purely from theory here; being brought up Irish in England, I grew up thinking blackheartedprotestant was one word. Note that Ireland gained independence through guerrilla warfare, and look how easily religion got brought into it. With regional variations the same thing happened in most of the British Empire's colonies, and this despite Britain having one of the greatest military forces ever assembled. Note also that the Irish Troubles are only now winding down, and it emphatically is not due to an increased military presence in Northern Ireland - quite the opposite!

Imagine Saddam had been a dictator, the way he was, in "The Christian World" - see how offensive that term is? It used to be the term we used for the West, but we fixed that little problem with a *lot* of bloodshed because, quite frankly, we thought it was worth it. But just imagine it. You think, for one minute, that any of you, seeing a dictator claiming to be the *direct* descendant of Jesus, claiming the annihilation of an entire people to "liberate" a city for a holy book, claiming the right to fund suicide bombers of abortion clinics, and claiming the right to sew "God Is Great" on our flag....do you *think* for one minute that people here would not want to see him removed post-haste?

Frankly, you're going to have to clean up and explain your analogy before I can respond properly to it.

I wasn't aware that Saddam claimed descent from Mohammed, though it's certainly possible since the man did have children; in any case, I don't see that the US would go to war with someone for making the claim to be a descendant of Jesus - the theocratization of America hasn't progressed that far yet - but neither did we attack Saddam for any such reason.

Saddam did gas Kurds, but in response to an uprising, not to rescue a holy book; in any case, we did not invade him at the time he did that, did we? Use of war gasses is pretty rare, but I note that we didn't attack Russia over the brutal suppression of the Chechen uprising either.

I'll grant you that funding suicide bombers who target allies of ours is a provocative act, but it's plainly not one which we consider worthy of a declaration of war, at least at the level Saddam was practising it - the timing alone shows that. There aren't a great many Christian suicide bombers, and bombing abortion clinics is a tad more specific than what the jihadis Saddam funded were doing, but I question your assertion that we'd be ever so much quicker to attack a nominally Christian country for equivalent acts - I simply don't buy it.

If a fundamentalist Christian government started funding millenarian suicide bombers targeting Israel, I think our response would be more or less proportionate. If anything, the current US government would be slower to action against such a Christian nation, which is equally wrong and disagreeable to me but goes directly against your thesis.

As for the flag, are you seriously suggesting we'd go to war because some dictator, of whatever religion, put a religious quote on his flag? Get real.

Be real. Be *honest* with your viewpoints. You know, and I know, that almost *everyone* here sees Christianity differently than they see the "Muslim World". It's racist. It's sad because it is so obvious. I know, as we all know, that if you had seated Saddam in the West, everyone here would be enraged to the point of calling directly for his ouster. Period. End of discussion.

You're either using Muslim where you mean Arab, or racist where you mean sectarian. Muslim is a religious adjective, not a racial one. And no, you're wrong; I, and I suspect many others here, see differences between the "Muslim World" and the "Christian World" only to the extent that such differences actually exist. I fully supported our first war against Saddam Hussein, and I suspect that many others here did also, and that is because it was a justified war in response to an aggressive act; had Saddam staged another invasion of a neighboring country you would find almost universal support for war against him, on the 'left' and 'right' alike, and not a man jack or woman jill would give a rat's patootie about whether he was Arab or Aryan, Muslim or Christian or secular. Period. End of discussion.

And then look at the reaction of the left to the war in general. I don't mean just in Iraq but to the entire situation. It is disingenuous to the core.

There is a reason why the armed forces don't *trust* the left. Let's take a look, shall we?

You'll find, if you choose to research it, that the armed forces do not trust the 'right' any more than the 'left' these days; rather less, in fact, given the dog's breakfast the Republicans have made of funding things like equipment purchases and veteran's benefits.

Iraq: Oh, "secular" dictator! We shouldn't have attacked. He wasn't the enemy.

That's correct. It seems like an awful lot of high-ranking military people agree with that assessment too, and an ever-growing number of prominent politicians and pundits on the 'right' - although whenever any of the latter go public, they're invariably rebadged as "really liberals all along" by Bush's water-carriers. Hard to make that stick on names like William F. Buckley, though.

Afghanistan: Oh, we're screwing up so badly. Let's just pull out and stop supporting a "puppet" democracy which can't actually control anything out of Kabul.

You must be listening to a different 'left' than me; the principal complaint I've heard is that we've been unable to deal properly with the Afghans because we're wasting all our resources on Iraq. Incidentally, I don't recall hearing anyone on the 'left' saying that Afghanistan was unjustified - only that it was poorly done, for the preceding reason.

Iran: Well, yes, they're religious fanatics at the top but we believe in the people. They'll slowly change the regime (how long do you want us to wait?) and we should stay out of it and talk to the bad guys in power.

Syria: Well, we should just butt out of their business and get to the negotiating table. Then they'll just listen to us as equals. Let's not attack them for supporting terrorism.

Iran and Syria are universally acknowledged as threats, but the recently bitten don't want to rush into war there, particularly when we're so weakened and stretched by our idiot involvement in Iraq. And yes, you do talk to 'bad guys' when you can, because if you only talk to people you are already bosom buddies with then you don't get ahead. That's called pragmatic reality, and I seem to recall from elsewhere in your post that you claim to be in favor of it.

Saudi Arabia: Oh well, they're extremists and most of their countrymen hate our guts, and they incite violence all over the world, but can you *imagine* the effect of attacking Saudi Arabia? How that would *inflame* the Muslim World? (Again with that term and "respect"....when did Atheists suddenly care about inflaming the "Christian World"? Or does the "Muslim World" get a free pass? Is that how it works?)

Again, this is a matter of pragmatism and you're trying to make it something else; the fact is, invading Saudi Arabia would gain us no benefit, we couldn't do anything useful with it, and yes, it would likely inflame the entire region. This isn't about some meaningless 'respect' for Islam, it's about not sticking your fucking arm in a wood chipper!

Pakistan: Well, he's a dictator, we shouldn't be doing business with him (but it's okay to talk to Syria, Iran, etc..). We don't know what to do about Pakistan, but we wish we could do something. What can we do? No idea. Leftists
haven't given us any practical solutions on the matter yet.

Neither have the 'right' and for the same reason: no idea what can usefully be done. Pre-emptive war doesn't seem like a good idea there either.

So...exactly *when* is it okay to fight back, and against whom? Is there *anyone* out there that people on this board think we should be at war with?

We have Jihadis blowing themselves up all over the world in the name of their pathetic god, and everyone here, who *should* be outraged to frigging hell...is excusing it as some sort of cultural quirk.

You're conflating the Iraq war with fighting jihadis. You shouldn't do that, because the failure to do so has made things worse, not better. Remember the conversation between Richard Clarke and Donald Rumsfeld? "Al-Quaida isn't in Iraq. We know where they are, they're in Afghanistan." "There are no good targets in Afghanistan."

So, aside from attacking the bad guys, then what *is* your solution? I haven't heard a *single* practical one from the left yet. All I hear is what we shouldn't do, and whom we *shouldn't* fight. That's not a solution. It's a war. Bombs killing people means *war*. WHAT is your solution for victory, please?

Attacking using the wrong weapons because it's simpler is as pointless as attacking the wrong targets because they're easier to aim at. You fight terrorists mostly with police work, including everything from infiltration to forensic accounting. Tightly targetted military strikes are part of it, when you can locate an actual training camp for example, but full scale invasions and occupations are not - they mostly serve as recruiting bonanzas for the other side. If you need to kill them then you do so by preference after giving them a transparently fair trial - not just because it is the right thing to do, but because the occasional live one who might get off is far less to be feared than the ones who will so easily be made martyrs if you don't.

It's not as sexy as 'shock and awe' and it takes a while, but it works. Sometimes at least, a lot more often than simple military galumphing does. Heard anything of the Baader-Meinhof gang lately? How about the Symbionese Liberation Army? How about the Weather Underground?

Hurry, lots of people are dying and the clock is ticking, thank you. =)

Summys <3

Yes, and a lot of them are dying because the methods that work aren't as sexy and immediate as a nice hot little war. That's the point.

You can also make it much, much harder to recruit terrorists by making less desperate and confused people who live amid constant warfare. Poverty and chaos breed desperation, and desperation breeds both religious zealotry and warriors with nothing to lose. No, I'm not saying that poverty and bad living conditions are the sole cause of this war - they aren't - but they sure help the process along.

Whatever we do, and things most certainly need to be done, it will be a long hard illness the world is going to go through. Readiness to war is not a trait which will make the fever shorter though - it's a potion which can sometimes help, in small and precisely measured doses, but it is more often and more easily made a poison than a medecine.

Oh, and one more thing... ;) I'm almost certainly what you would call a leftist, but I'm no utopian either, and I also am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I just don't shoot every religious idiot who looks dangerous.

(edited to corrct formatting and spelling errors)

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

45. Comment #52439 by Peacebeuponme on June 27, 2007 at 3:17 am

Atticus

As an Australian, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in your comment. How is Australia "less free" than the UK?

Yes, it seemed a silly comment. However one way in which you are certainly "less free" is that you are obliged to take part in elections. Forcing you to vote is hardly liberal.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

46. Comment #52455 by Pantore on June 27, 2007 at 4:11 am

"the work of "Sunni insurgents," the soft name for al-Qaida"

LMAO

Please stop this Neocon-fascist propoganda!

People that have their country invaded by some fascist horde have the right to resist according to the international law and it doesn't matter wether they're muslim lunatics or not.

Other Comments by Pantore

47. Comment #52468 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 4:50 am

I'm a pretty strong American leftist (and atheist), but not a "blind faith" leftist! I have finally come to the conclusion that as an atheist, I want to see the world as it really is- FILLED with extremely awe inspiring, beauty, and EXTREMELY horribly vile things. So; the wishy washy "can't we all just hold hands and sing" leftist ideal is no more correct than the moronic vision of the theists rosey clored glasses. I've got to agree with Hitchens (and SummerSeal) on the war. I HATE my current "commander in chief" and most of the entire administration. I don't even like the pretense of why we went into Iraq- BUT- whether we stay or pull out of Irag, it seems to be a wise move on par with the vision of reality we ateists are SUPPOSED TO HAVE, to fight fundamentalism (and yes, especially islamic fundies) with real life warfare (which should BY ALL MEANS also include non combative solutions). I'm getting tired of the apparent double standard of the "party line" leftist atheists: life is beautiful AND cruel, yet we need to be pacifists?!?!

Other Comments by KRKBAB

48. Comment #52470 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 4:56 am

I can just hear them now:"and he frequently mis- spells words!"

Other Comments by KRKBAB

49. Comment #52474 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 5:10 am

The United Kingdom! Freedom in the land of 5 million CCTV cameras, peering down at us at every moment of our waking lives while we are not restricting ourselves to our only private sanctuaries: our homes.

Love to agree with you; big brother just won't let me.

Other Comments by chapstick08

50. Comment #52475 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 5:16 am

I for one don't get a party line leaflet telling me what my opinions should be, and I don't always oppose war - I make my own mind up, as does Hitchens. I simply disagree with him as to the value of the war in Iraq. Attacking the Afghanistan Taleban, who were the fundamentalist whackos who were actually sheltering and supporting the people who attacked us, was necessary and justified.

The Iraq war was not, and the best intelligence available at the time damn well said so; our government just opted to ignore the best in favor of the worst, because they were determined to have their war. Well they got it, and now we're reaping the whirlwind; if anyone honestly believes that the Iraq war has had the effect of decreasing the number of jihadi lunatics in the world then they need to seriously wake up and smell the cordite.

We merely exchanged a contained and stable secular dictatorship for a chaotic maelstrom of would-be theocrats, and every day we're there makes our position worse. Fighting fundamentalism is something we can all get behind. Doing it in stupid and counterproductive ways that actually increase the ranks of the fundamentalists is not.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh