1. Comment #70304 by Nero on September 14, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Kind of short, but always good to hear from Hitchens.

"I became a journalist so that I wouldn't have to rely on the press for information"

Well said.

Nero

Other Comments by Nero

2. Comment #70305 by windweaver on September 14, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Hitchens is as much a part of the manipulative media as any journalistic hack. To quote Ed Herman:

"Christopher Hitchens is a real asset to the war party, because he is a facile writer and covers over by vigorous assertion and imagery his new reactionary politics and the feeble intellectual defenses he musters for it. His value is enhanced by the fact that he is a "straddler," that is, a man in transition from an earlier left politics to apologetics for imperial wars... and a harsh critic of Kissinger and Pinochet. He is therefore presentable as a member of the "rational left" or left that has "seen the light." Such folks are much honored by the mainstream media."

Other Comments by windweaver

3. Comment #70314 by Jolly Bloger on September 14, 2007 at 10:59 pm

The more I hear from Christopher Hitchens the greater respect I have for him. He is surely one of the most moral and honest people I have ever heard speak; he accepts no undeserved credit, and gives none in return. He's nearly perfectly impartial and objective. It is at the same time both humbling and emboldening.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

4. Comment #70330 by somersetsimon on September 15, 2007 at 1:20 am

I listen to the The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast every week (subscribe via iTunes). It's always interesting - they take on all kinds of pseudo-science and superstitious nonsense. Well worth a listen.

Simon

Other Comments by somersetsimon

5. Comment #70335 by 3ddm on September 15, 2007 at 1:32 am

The Skeptics guide to the Universe is in my humble opinion the best podcast there is. It is always witty and entertaining and they have loads of great guests. Well worth a (free) download.

Other Comments by 3ddm

6. Comment #70336 by Robert Maynard on September 15, 2007 at 1:32 am

windweaver, aren't you being kind of manipulative by suggesting we should take what Ed Herman says seriously? :P
This is a man who is (with good cause) suspicious of all mainstream media as corporate saddled dispensers of flavoured information. But this skepticism isn't just a rule of thumb, it's a doctrine. Anyone who interacts with this tainted system must fit somewhere into the 'propaganda model', and is automatically part of the problem.
How do we square that circle with independent journalists like Hitchens? Use pithy qualitative descriptions like "feeble intellectual defenses", "facile writer" "vigorous assertion", "reactionary politics", "apologetics for imperial wars".

How does he imagine the mainstream media will change (for the better), if he's unwilling to consider it as a dynamic system? How is he to imagine it becoming more objective, if he himself is so stained-blue he can't even pretend that someone he disagrees with might be right, and he wrong? He can't. You could not present him with an example of good mainstream media (should you find one) that he couldn't spin as a lie-spewing factory of corporate bias. His emotionally charged claims are non-disprovable, and they are meaningless.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

7. Comment #70342 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 2:01 am

His value is enhanced by the fact that he is a "straddler," that is, a man in transition from an earlier left politics to apologetics for imperial wars... and a harsh critic of Kissinger and Pinochet.

What a hopelessly simplistic analysis. I don't see Hitchens any less critical of Kissinger and Pinochet these days...

Other Comments by steve99

8. Comment #70344 by windweaver on September 15, 2007 at 2:18 am

Robert, I've been reading Herman for years and I can't recognize the person you describe in your post. Are his claims really "emotionally charged","non-disprovable" and "meaningless". Who's guilty of using pithy qualitative descriptions here. Herman does actually accept that the mainstream media do occasionally print stories that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. A recent USA Today article on the horrors of life in Gaza springs to mind. But IMO he is right to point out the institutional biases at work in the mainstream media, particularly in the USA where multinational corporations own and control the vast majority of media outlets. The important thing is that Herman is a caring human being who wants to live in a world where the truth actully means something. I recommend that you read this article by (fellow traveller) Chomsky:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9710-mainstream-media.html


Other Comments by windweaver

9. Comment #70347 by Robert Maynard on September 15, 2007 at 2:40 am

windweaver I (and the *comments* page in general, really) didn't need the Chomsky lecture, I'm familiar with his stuff.

Herman's claims regarding Hitchens (you know, the ones you quoted) were "emotionally charged", "non-disprovable" and "meaningless". It's important to note that these are not separate descriptions. They are meaningless BECAUSE they are non-disprovable. They're non disprovable BECAUSE they're emotionally charged pejoratives.

I never claimed I wasn't guilty of the same kind of pejorative statements - but rightly so, as a result you're not liable to trust me. Likewise, I don't trust what Herman says, least of all at face value.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

10. Comment #70348 by windweaver on September 15, 2007 at 2:43 am

Steve, I know, from your various posts, that you have tremendous respect for Hitchens and even see virtues in his pro-Iraq war stance. But Herman has pointed out serious deficiencies in his political world-view. Here's the link to the article which I got the Herman quote from:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2370

I think you'll agree it's not a simplistic analysis of Hitchens' position(and Herman is not arguing that Hitchens has ,in recent years, gone soft on Kissinger and Pinochet).

Other Comments by windweaver

11. Comment #70357 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 3:52 am

Steve, I know, from your various posts, that you have tremendous respect for Hitchens and even see virtues in his pro-Iraq war stance. But Herman has pointed out serious deficiencies in his political world-view

This is, I feel, a non-sequitur. Respect does not have to come from support of every view. I respect Hitchens' because of his wit, his writing style and his intelligence. I do not agree with all of his views.

I did misread what you wrote somewhat, and it was not a direct quote from the clearer statement in that article.

Other Comments by steve99

12. Comment #70359 by Dreamer's Dilemma on September 15, 2007 at 4:00 am

Windexpeller,

The Chomsky piece may be well written, but it is disingenuous at best. Certainly it does not accurately describe the New York Times and major television media news organizations (CBS, NBC, ABC) that blanket the American news market with left leaning propaganda on a daily basis. In that world, socialized health care, proliferation of the welfare state, complete abdication of our national sovereignty and an absolute requirement to ignore half of the biological origins of the unborn children killed by the "Mother's Right" to choose is considered the "middle ground" position, with anything slightly to the right of that being called extremist.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

13. Comment #70362 by windweaver on September 15, 2007 at 4:29 am

Steve, I only removed the reference to The Nation in the posted quote because Hitchens has since resigned from that magazine.

Dreamer's Dilemma, Ann Coulter would be proud of you!

Other Comments by windweaver

14. Comment #70366 by USA_Limey on September 15, 2007 at 5:14 am

Comment #70344 by windweaver...

...When did it become ok to copy/paste large essays like this into the comments page?

By all means cite the article and provide a link if you like but please, cut that crap out. (I mean that literally as well as figuratively - I think you should remove it)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

15. Comment #70370 by Yorker on September 15, 2007 at 5:43 am

14. Comment #70366 by USA_Limey

It seems to have been OK for a long time, the site allows it. A big change from the early days when we earned a verbal slapping for straying off-topic!

Windweaver

Aside from the fact that Dreamer's Dilemma seems to be asleep - at least to reality - I'm surprised you allowed him to call you a fart! You're clearly more tolerant of assholes than I am.

Other Comments by Yorker

16. Comment #70396 by sane1 on September 15, 2007 at 10:09 am

Dreamer: You say the NYT etc is in favor of:

complete abdication of our national sovereignty

Really? Provide some evidence and lets talk about it.

Other Comments by sane1

17. Comment #70399 by GSP on September 15, 2007 at 10:39 am

Ahh, yes. The "liberal media" again rears its ugly head. The "liberal media" that continually smeared Clinton's name over a bogus sex scandal. The "liberal media" that directed no questions toward the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. The "liberal media" that fired Bill Maher for making a comment against Bush. The "liberal media" that fired Phil Donahue because they didn't think his "progressive points of view" would adequately represent MSNBC in these "times of war." The "liberal media" who discusses topics with "experts" who are overwhelming centrist and right-leaning. I could go on and on.

Though I guess you could be right, Dreamer's Dilemma, maybe it's just that the liberal media has genuine self-hatred issues.

Other Comments by GSP

18. Comment #70402 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 10:47 am

Dreamer's Dilemma, Ann Coulter would be proud of you!

Being somewhat skeptical of Chomsky is hardly Coulterish.

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #70414 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 11:44 am

Hitchen's position on Iraq really disappointed me. Then I realized there is no good position.

Other Comments by robotaholic

20. Comment #70438 by Yorker on September 15, 2007 at 1:19 pm

18. Comment #70402 by steve99

"Being somewhat skeptical of Chomsky is hardly "Coulterish."

You jumped too keenly on the wrong boat I think.

Looks to me that Windweaver was referring to the anti-female stance taken by Dreamer.

Other Comments by Yorker

21. Comment #70448 by eXcommunicate on September 15, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Hitchen's position on Iraq really disappointed me. Then I realized there is no good position.

Indeed. Indeed. I do love Hitchy's intellect and propensity to "take it to the man" so I was disappointed to find that he was a hawk in regards to the Iraq War. I do have to say despite my initial revulsion to Hitchens's Iraq POV, subsequent videos of him and the revelations of his reasoning have softened my revulsion to one of respect. I am completely torn on my Iraq views now, thanks largely to Christopher. Thanks a LOT Hitch! ;)

PS: Thanks Bluebird

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

22. Comment #70463 by bluebird on September 15, 2007 at 3:12 pm

eXcommunicate, the Comment Posting Guidelines tells how to specialize your comments :)

C. H.'s book continues to be on the 'top 10' list at our local bookstore (TGD was a "Staff Favorite" for a loooong time). A pleasant surprise was a new, highly visible section called "Atheism"; RD, CH, SH, DD, et.al. were firmly entrenched.

Other Comments by bluebird

23. Comment #70468 by Veratyr82 on September 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Windwalker said:

"Hitchens is as much a part of the manipulative media as any journalistic hack. To quote Ed Herman:

"Christopher Hitchens is a real asset to the war party, because he is a facile writer and covers over by vigorous assertion and imagery his new reactionary politics and the feeble intellectual defenses he musters for it. His value is enhanced by the fact that he is a "straddler," that is, a man in transition from an earlier left politics to apologetics for imperial wars... and a harsh critic of Kissinger and Pinochet. He is therefore presentable as a member of the "rational left" or left that has "seen the light." Such folks are much honored by the mainstream media."

Few people have devoted their lives to distorting the truth more than Ed Herman, a man who denied that there was anything like a massacre at Srebrenica, yet seemed fit to deem the media coverage surrounding a photograph of an emaciated man in a Serbian death camp a "bloodbath". He makes molehills of mountains and mountains of molehills; it's his profession and his pathology. Even Chomsky, who co-authored a very tedious book with Herman, is afraid to stand by his man. To quote Christopher Hitchens:

"I then took the chance of asking (Chomsky) whether he still considered Ed Herman a political co-thinker. Herman had moved from opposing the bombing of Serbia to representing the Milosevic regime as a victim and as a nationalist peoples' democracy. He has recently said, in a ludicrous attack on me, that the "methods and policies" of the Western forces in Kosovo were "very similar" to the tactics of Al Qaeda, an assertion that will not surprise those who are familiar with his style. Chomsky knew perfectly well what I was asking, and why, but chose to respond by saying that he did not regard anybody in particular as a co-thinker. I thought then that this was a shady answer..."

Moving from the delicious ad hominem to the rancid substance of Herman's argument, I think any fair minded viewer of the videos that frequently appear on this site will conclude that no media outlet has control of Christopher Hitchens, and that he is more often then not positioned as the antagonist on news programs. It pleases me to see that Herman knows that most people regard his faction as the "insane left". (If Herman can invent phrases to scare quote, why can't I?)

Other Comments by Veratyr82

24. Comment #70471 by dae on September 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

I am no friend of Islam and appreciate Hitchens' and Harris' critiques of all three Abrahamic traditions. The fanatical rendition of Islam is obviously the most reactionary of the lot, with fundamentalist Christianity and Zionist Judaism close behind. I do not consider either Hitchens or Harris however to be true humanists. The vast majority of Muslims like the vast majority of Christians and Jews are deluded by their god-fearing ideology but they are also not a monolithic entity as they are so often stereotyped. How to explain the popularity of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, the enduring secular regime in Turkey and other progressive movements within countries that are nominally Islamist. The Baath party in both its Iraqi and Syrian manifestations was decidedly non-Islamist and secular in nature. Hitchens' and Harris' use their anti-Islamist stance to tar and feather any and all opposition to the joint American-British destruction of Iraq, which is undeniably a human tragedy of the highest order. While the genocide in Darfur with 200,000 dead and two million refugees is decried throughout the media no equivalence is made with the greater numbers of dead and the greater number of refugees generated by the Bush/Blair fiasco. As far as I'm concerned no one who supports aggressive preemptive wars of choice such as we're waging in Iraq can be considered to be in the humanist fold.

Other Comments by dae

25. Comment #70474 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 4:47 pm

dae, this is the problem: in many cases we've no documents or legal arguments to help us separate the vast majority of kind Muslims from the jihadis, or the oppressive Christians from the live-and-let-live Christians.

The moderates need to formulate their written docrines, so everyone is clear about what they actually believe.

The Unitarians are quite clear that they reject the Bible as God's word. So good on them.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

26. Comment #70487 by keith on September 15, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Dae,
Hitchen's and Harris' attack is on Islam, not on individual Muslims. I think they are aware that many Muslims don't subscribe to the same set of beliefs as the Jihadis, or at least not to the same degree. However, unless these moderate Muslims come forward and become a bit more vocal, perhaps we are entitled to worry about just how many of them actually support attacks like 9/11 or 7/7 or would like to introduce sharia law to the UK. Certain surveys seem to suggest that the ones who do support these things are by no means a negligible monority. Perhaps you have information to the contrary.
It's very noble of you to come out in the defence or the 'real' Muslims and protect them from criticism, but your assurances would only help me sleep more soundly if you could offer some kind of evidence that they are as meak and mild as followers of Anglicanism have become.
Incidentally, I think what Hitchens was supporting was the invasion of Iraq, not 'a joint British-American destruction' thereof. He is critical of how things have been run since the invasion.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be claiming that it is only the British and Americans that are destroying Iraq right now and that the Sunni and Shiites who kill each other have little to do with this state of affairs. Is that right? And are these people also Islamic moderates, the real Muslims, who are misrepresented by both Hitchens and Harris out of sheer spite?
You may be right that being in favour of the invasion of Iraq precludes anyone from claiming to be a Humanist. My own point of view would be that being in favour of the continued torture and suppression of the Iraqi people, the continued tolerance of a dictator who it has been proved was trying to procure nuclear weapons, the continuance of sanctions that were apparently responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqi children, basically, the state of affairs that you would probably call 'peace', doesn't give you much more right to call yourself a Humanist.

Other Comments by keith

27. Comment #70489 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 5:46 pm

You jumped too keenly on the wrong boat I think.

You are correct. I foolishly jumped in and posted based on a quick scan of a post.

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #70510 by dae on September 15, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Keith,

Many of your points are well taken but you jump to a host of unwarranted conclusions regarding my own thinking. This of course is due to the fact that my comments were of necessity brief and not fully articulated, so I will elaborate a bit here. First, I am not British so I cannot speak to the domestic situation in the UK or other countries with a sizable Muslim community. Here in the States I'm not in the least concerned about the threat of local "Jihardists," if they exist it's a problem for law enforcement. I am in favor of restrictions on fundamentalists of any sort to preach their hatred and if I was in your situation I would certainly be in favor of deporting offending clerics and not allowing known Jihardists or sympathizers from entering the country. The mass of Muslims, like the mass of Christians, need to be galvanized into action (hence the term rabble-rouser) by religious demagogues. I for one would therefore restrict free speech in this regard. I'm sure a litmus test for demagoguery can be established. Eliminate the demagogues and most Muslims would be "as meek and mild as followers of Anglicanism" As regards the "invasion of Iraq versus its destruction," there were many prescient voices who predicted exactly what transpired (Dick Cheney in 1994 being one of them), so don't give me the nonsense that there was anything noble about overthrowing Saddam. The real motive for invading Iraq was not to save Iraqis from the depredations of Saddam, but to serve as a cat's paw for extending American influence in the region as has been clearly articulated recently by Bush himself. Shia and Sunni did not annihilate each other for centuries, they intermingled and intermarried. So why the devastating internecine conflict we're now witnessing? The invasion by creating anarchy enabled the very forces we are against to rise up and metastasize. You state that "being in favour of the continued torture and suppression of the Iraqi people, the continued tolerance of a dictator who it has been proved was trying to procure nuclear weapons, the continuance of sanctions that were apparently responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqi children, basically, the state of affairs that you would probably call 'peace', doesn't give you much more right to call yourself a Humanist". First, no one in their right mind favored the "continued torture and suppression of the Iraqi people". But history has proved that only the people themselves can shake off their oppression. It is not our duty to intervene in such situations as the results of our so doing demonstrate. I also was always against the sanction regime as totally counter-productive. The best plan of action probably would have been to co-opt Saddam as his secular regime could have served as a bulwark against radical Islamism. Our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets was a mistake of historic proportions. What a better world it would be today if the Soviets had succeeded in secularizing Afghanistan! So I would dare say that my positions better reflect a secular humanist perspective than does yours, Hitchens' or Harris'.

Other Comments by dae

29. Comment #70516 by windweaver on September 15, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Here's what Herman has to say about the Srebrenica massacre. Judge for yourself whether he's a part of the "insane left".
http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political58.htm

Other Comments by windweaver

30. Comment #70520 by Veratyr82 on September 15, 2007 at 9:39 pm

There's a very fun parlor game called "Moonbat Bingo" that has brought me many hours of delight. It can be played with a group or alone, and the rules are simple and flexible:

A player visits a fanatical left-wing forum and makes a post purporting the most outlandish beliefs supported by the most distorted of facts; the objective being to pull one over the denizens of the forum and to see how many of them agree with it ("Wingnut Bingo" is the right-wing counterpart.) Points are awarded for creativity, subtlety, absurdity, and popularity among the site's frequenters, and a fun time is usually had by all.

For my money, the most effective submission is the resilient canard that Saddam's regime was secular. My signature move was to lift passages from "Politics and the English Language" and adjust the wording to fit the matter. Thus: "While freely conceding that the Saddam regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Iraqi people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the broader struggle against Western hegemony and for secularism"

You of course, I hope, see that this is complete nonsense. Saddam openly sought alliances with theocratic elements, the most brutal of them being the murderous thugs in Sudan, whose hideous atrocities 'dae' clumsily compares to the efforts of the coalition (may this sinister instance of breathtaking stupidity haunt the rest of your life with sudden bursts of regret and anxiety). Saddam adopted the propaganda and regalia of the Islamists to buttress his failing regime; he began an enormous mosque-building project, he often wore the robes of the Imam, and he used the language of jihad to celebrate the attacks on 9/11:

"[W]e hope that the people of the United States will remember that the souls that were killed with US weapons and US machinations and plots can rise to God, lord of heavens and earth, to complain about the injustice of the United States. In fact, God, the omnipotent and great, can see. When God strikes, no one can stand in the way of his power."

It would take an intense session of mental calisthenics to rationalize the supposed secular nature of man whose pronouncements are more fanatical than those of the relievedly late Jerry Falwell, but I suspect the lack of cerebral effort is the problem to begin with.

Other Comments by Veratyr82

31. Comment #70523 by veggieguy12 on September 15, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Jesus!, this boring crap from right-wing posters here proves one needn't be intelligent or humane and compassionate to come to admit the obvious lack of a deity. I must remember that while the intelligent are atheists, the converse of this is not necessarily true. (The "liberal media"?!?)
Oh, well, too bad.

Seeing Hitchens interject "doctor" as an esteemed title to Bill Maher's description of Karl Rove, while correcting Maher's titling of Al Sharpton as "reverend" with "Mister Sharpton" was illuminatingly illustrative of his biases, but also pedantically pathetic.
My sympathies, Christopher; how low you've fallen, with no hands offered to assist you in rising...

Other Comments by veggieguy12

32. Comment #70526 by dae on September 15, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Of course, "Saddam openly sought alliances with theocratic elements, the most brutal of them being the murderous thugs in Sudan," and so have US administrations over the years. And yes "Saddam adopted the propaganda and regalia of the Islamists to buttress his failing regime; he began an enormous mosque-building project, he often wore the robes of the Imam, and he used the language of jihad to celebrate the attacks on 9/11". No denying any of that. Saddam was a wicked, wicked man and he cynically employed every trick in the book to buttress his rule. So did Stalin who Saddam idealized. Stalin was also a great "secularist". I'm not arguing in favor of either of these beasts, but historically Baathist ideology was secular in nature. And while Syria is allied with Iran because of geopolitical considerations it is demonstrably a more secular state than the latter. And lets not confuse secular with humanist. None of these regimes are in any fashion humanist. Secular regimes can be as brutal as they come (Pol Pot anyone). What I'm getting at is that this monolithic conception of the so-called Muslim world is ridiculous. Historically there have been "secular" alternatives to the modern day fanatical Islamists. As far as I'm concerned it matters little how you die, whether butchered by Sudanese thugs or decimated by cluster bombs. 4 million refugees are 4 million refugees, whether as a result of the medieval barbarism of Sudanese tribes or the misbegotten policies of enlightened Neocons. So Veratyr82 I find your cynicism as reprehensible as you find my naiveté and I have no regrets or anxiety in comparing the "coalition's" actions in Iraq with that of Sudanese thugs in Darfur. The mess in Iraq is a direct result of the duplicity and mendacious policies of the "coalition" you seem to so highly esteem. And as you state it takes "an intense session of mental calisthenics to rationalize" otherwise and I suspect an equal "lack of cerebral effort" on your part to do so.

Other Comments by dae

33. Comment #70531 by Robert Maynard on September 15, 2007 at 11:27 pm

veggieguy,
I'm not sure if you were referring to me as one of the 'right-wing' posters - I'm not sure anybody here that has criticised Herman in defense of Hitchens, or even defended the invasion of Iraq, is necessarily right-wing (maybe Dreamer's Dilemma?). For what it's worth, I consider myself a liberal, but I do so in the understanding that my politics do not determine my character in dichotomies as simplistic as intelligent/unintelligent, humane/inhumane, compassionate/callous, or vice versa.

Your understanding of intelligence and humanist traits as distributed by political affiliation is childishly shallow and unsurprisingly bereft of foundation.

Maybe you should.. like ..eat some meat.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

34. Comment #70556 by keith on September 16, 2007 at 3:23 am

Dae,
I have to say that it was a very good reply and it sounds like you're very sensible. The truth is that we all see that things have gone horribly wrong in Iraq and it must be very tempting for all those who were against the invasion to say 'I told you so' and as long as they had some alternative plan in mind when they marched on the centres of major cities (just leaving things as they were does not count as a plan in my book), then perhaps you, and they, have every right to gloat. It certainly appears so in retrospect.
However, there are one or two points that I'd like to make. One is that however the Saddam regime was overthrown the results weren't going to look pretty. As we saw in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and also in India in 1947, any kind of large-scale changes cause havoc.
Secondly, whatever motives Bush might have had, these weren't necessarily identical with those of Hitchens and it seemed possible to improve the lot of the Iraqis whether Bush was doing it for the right or wrong reasons.
You say that "Our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets was a mistake of historic proportions". Back in 1980 the west's biggest enemy was communism and the US would have backed almost anyone who was against it. This made (and makes) sense, for the same reason that the west was right, 40 years earlier, to ally themselves with Stalin's Russia against the Nazis, who were then the biggest threat to western democracy. I hope you wouldn't say that the west was wrong to do this just because a few years later the ally then themselves became the biggest enemy. All these decisions have to be seen in the context of their time.
You say that "history has proved that only the people themselves can shake off their oppression". If this is true, the main reason is that other people couldn't give a shit what was happening beyond their borders and any uprising had to come of necessity from within. However, one positive change in our thinking today is that we do feel responsible for the fate of others and to stand idly by while they painfully try to free themselves isn't necessarily always the best choice. While waiting for the people of Iraq to rise up of their own accord, how many decades would have had to go by and how many people would have been tortured and killed in the meantime? You might be right in replying, "Not nearly as many as are being killed right now" and maybe you'd be right. I find it difficult to say without going back to 2003 and re-running history, this time letting the UN decide what to do.
Apart from this, I'm not sure that the Muslims of Bosnia would agree with you about change having to come from within without any outseide help. Chances are that had the US not stepped in when it did in the Bosnian War, there wouldn't be any Muslims left in Bosnia.
On your dislike of Harris and Hitchens' criticism of Islam, I don't see why we can't try to get rid of the trouble-making Imams and at the same time try to convince the majority of Muslims, a la Hitchens and Harris, that their beliefs are silly and potentially dangerous. Why do we have to chose the one and abandon the other. Why not both?

Other Comments by keith

35. Comment #70557 by the great teapot on September 16, 2007 at 3:37 am

Iraq , schmiraq.
Hitchens worthy contribution is to ask people to question.
Mother Terresa is a by word for "Good" to nearly everyone in the western world. But ask anyone in the western world what she has acually done and how many could answer. Suprisingly the answer is jackshit.- that is hitchens great contribution.
His personal opininion on iraq is irrelevent.

Other Comments by the great teapot

36. Comment #70569 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 5:47 am

Christopher Hitchens at his superb best here - clear, measured, calm, perceptive, articulate and ruthlessly intelligent. If he could always be depended on to be like this, my feelings about him as a commentator would be a lot less mixed.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

37. Comment #70586 by dae on September 16, 2007 at 7:09 am

Keith,
I do appreciate your positions and this will be my last reply. It's not a matter of gloating or saying "I told you so". It's a matter of not continuing to make the same mistake over and over again. And whether or not Hitchen's had a different perspective on the future of Iraq than the Neocons is irrelevant. The fact is anyone who thought they could mold Iraq in their own image is and was a fool. The fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi's and we should have left them to determine it on their own. It's sort of like the time machine dilemma. If you can return to the past you wouldn't be able to change the outcome of events no matter how hard you try. Our going in just exacerbated things. We could have continued isolating Saddam (not with the barbaric sanction regime but with other tactics), supported opposition forces, etc. As far as I'm concerned war was and is not the solution to affect "regime change". And I'm not a pacifist. Was the Soviet Union the west's biggest enemy in the 1980s? I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. The Soviet Union was on the brink of historic change whether we pushed it over or not. Communism fell like a house of cards and would have done so irrespective of our supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. We should have let history take its course as is happening in China today. The Chinese people, the Russian people, the Iraqi people have to determine their own destinies. Our interventions have not been for noble causes but to further the economic and geopolitical interests of our elites. Sorry Keith you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Other Comments by dae

38. Comment #70592 by dae on September 16, 2007 at 7:36 am

Keith,
One more thing you said, "why can't we try to get rid of the trouble-making Imams and at the same time try to convince the majority of Muslims, a la Hitchens and Harris, that their beliefs are silly and potentially dangerous. Why do we have to chose the one and abandon the other. Why not both?" Fine by me. And how do you do it? First decapitate the serpent. Second abolish our antiquated respect for "freedom of religion". No more preferences given to churches, synagogues or mosques. Tax them and their properties. Close down their schools. Force them to "worship" on their own dime. If you're serious about the "god delusion" and the threat it poses to our civilization accept the fact that the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is our absurd deference to religious freedom.

Other Comments by dae

39. Comment #70601 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:06 am

Is it unfair to paint all (insert ideology/religion) with the same extremist brush? Depends whether violence is explicitly mandated by the ideology, or occurs in spite of the ideology.

Any reasonably coherent ideology will be expressed in written documents. Some documents will be highly esteemed and difficult to amend; others will be derivative and subject to debate and revision. Finally, some customs will be unwritten and variable between communities.

If some violent practice is a matter of custom or subject to dispute, people within the ideology can appeal to higher principles to change the practice. So long as a higher principle in support of peace exists, it would be unfair to judge the entire ideology by the behavior of a few.

But what if an ideology mandates oppressive or violent practices at the highest level, in the most sacred, authoritative, and legally binding documents? Well, we're in trouble. Even if most people ignore those mandates now, one day some clever politician will insist the law be honored. So I think we must condemn the ideology itself under these circumstances, regardless of common practice.

A disconnect between words and deeds can be fixed by taking words seriously, but not otherwise.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

40. Comment #70627 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on September 16, 2007 at 10:57 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62FTfGZ8j7c

Please watch this!!!!!! Listen to what he says about Science!!!!!!

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

41. Comment #70730 by Summer Seale on September 16, 2007 at 7:12 pm

"The fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi's and we should have left them to determine it on their own."


Let's replace one word:

"The fate of Germany is in the hands of Germans and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or another:

"The fate of Serbia is in the hands of Serbians and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or, yet another:

"The fate of the South is in the hands of Southerners and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Another:

"The fate of Sudan is in the hands of Sudanese and we should have left them to determine it on their own."

Or again:

"The fate of Rwanda is in the hands of Rwandans and we should have left them to determine it on their own."


I rest my case alongside the graves of hundreds of millions who waited for those words to change, and for somebody to do *something* about it.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

42. Comment #70757 by millefolia on September 16, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Thanks, Summer Seale. Your brilliant analogies make the pain from all the humanitarian bombings go away like a charm. Life is so much better with great analogies. In Drezden, Baghdad, Belgrade, anywhere, really.

Other Comments by millefolia

43. Comment #70778 by Summer Seale on September 16, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Thanks to you too, millefolia.

Meanwhile, in Auschwitz and Kigali, your incredibly understanding lack of action really comforts the dead there as well.

Yes, we must all endeavor to do absolutely nothing. We must accept that peace is a means to an end because fighting can be so messy and unpleasant for everyone. Please pass the crumpets and don't mind the slaves being whipped in the fields. If they truly want freedom, I'm certain they'll just stand up and get it on their own. Nobody is advocating a war to end slavery, surely. To suggest that would lack such nuanced understanding of our economic and societal structure. They couldn't, wouldn't, ever be that insane. Would they?

Other Comments by Summer Seale

44. Comment #70901 by jimbob on September 17, 2007 at 7:51 am

Great choice of pictures! Is that nude guy giving god the finger the first documented antitheist?

Maybe Hitch in his younger days?

Just thought I'd change the tone of this discussion a bit!

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

45. Comment #71159 by windweaver on September 18, 2007 at 12:04 am

Seale, the latest estimates put the death toll in Iraq at 1.2 million.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Are you honestly happy about the West's intervention given this appalling statistic?




Other Comments by windweaver

46. Comment #72509 by jonny_eh on September 21, 2007 at 10:47 am

For more interviews with Hitchens, uncensored, check out this page. It's $2. It goes to a great cause (the greatest science podcast ever).

http://theskepticsguide.org/ecommerce/commerce.asp

Other Comments by jonny_eh

47. Comment #72514 by shaunfletcher on September 21, 2007 at 11:32 am

Summer Seale, you are falling into a huge trap that has been dug so many times.

Let me put it this way for you. For every worthwhile and genuine use of a historical parallel to justify a contemporary action, there are a hundred unjustified and dishonest uses of such a parallel. EVERYONE who wants to invade another country calls on the spirit of churchill, or the demons of hitler or pol pot.

But to accept your view with only the justification you give is to accept that invasion, war, enforcement of view is under all circumstances the right and in fact only decent way to behave. You just made a case for every country in the world invading and enforcing its views on every other country it disagrees with.

Of course there could be many valid justifications for an invasion, for war, for enforcement by force. But you havent presented any at all, only cheap rhetoric.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher