Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheists & The War On Terror

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I disagree. A social commentator/historian may reasonably consider WWII just and at the same time consider the internment of US based Japanese or the bombing of Dresden reprehensible.

    Likewise, you can be against individual aspects of the war on terror (Iraq) while not being against it as a whole which is what I was interested in.
    .... You mean like how Hitchens could have been for the war, but against torturing and spying?


  • Options
    #33
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    It should also be pointed out that, "imperialist war of aggression" or not, the grounds on which Hitchens supported the war - the removal of an autocratic dictator - is something that Orwell almost certainly would have supported, whether he supported the war itself or not.
    The "removal of an autocratic dictator" was not for the benefit of Iraqis. It was for the security of the American people to protect them from Iraq's phantom WMD's. It was to protect them from Iraqi sponsored Al Qaeda terrorism. These were total fabrications, exactly the sort of fear-inducing propaganda which Orwell despised. These lies were pushed heavily by Hitchens.


  • Options
    #34
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    What's the point of this thread exactly?


  • Options
    #35
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Your first premise. That's your opinion based on your very biased view of reality. From there all your other points fail.
    It was an imperialist war of aggression

    What exactly are you claiming? That it was a war of US self-defense that didn't result in the occupation of Iraq?


  • Options
    #36
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    What's the point of this thread exactly?
    No idea, but I've just moved the equally pointless stuff from 'Hitch is dead' here, to keep the threads to noise ratio down.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    No idea, but I've just moved the equally pointless stuff from 'Hitch is dead' here, to keep the threads to noise ratio down.
    Could you reinstate the actual OP please?


  • Options
    #38
    decimatio
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And equally the torturing, surveilling, illegally wiretapping, propagandising, murdering, bloodthirtsty, imperialist, US regime.

    Which is the point.

    And which point would that be ? Orwell would have likely been against those things just as Hitchens was.


  • Options
    #39
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It was an imperialist war of aggression
    Or if you were biased in a different way, you could call it a war to remove a dictatorial regime, which Orwell clearly would have agreed with.
    You just phrase it the other way because it is convenient for your rhetoric.

    But as I've pointed out, both Hitchens and Orwell both believed in direct, aggressive actions, including war to deal with evil regimes.
    Both Hitchens and Orwell did not support the ideas of torture and spying on your own people and spoke out against it.

    Please point out exactly what is incorrect in those statements.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What exactly are you claiming? That it was a war of US self-defense that didn't result in the occupation of Iraq?
    Lol, that's a pretty flimsy and transparent strawman you got there...


  • Options
    #40
    decimatio
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The "removal of an autocratic dictator" was not for the benefit of Iraqis.

    That's not why the West removed him but it was a benefit of his removal.
    It was for the security of the American people to protect them from Iraq's phantom WMD's. It was to protect them from Iraqi sponsored Al Qaeda terrorism.

    Yes that's a large part of why they did it.
    These were total fabrications, exactly the sort of fear-inducing propaganda which Orwell despised.

    The WMD's were, the sponsoring of Al Qaeda was not. In either case it's irrelevant to me and unless I'm very much mistaken it was irrelevant to Hitchens.
    These lies were pushed heavily by Hitchens.
    Hitchens wrote what he accepted to be the truth at the time with the evidence available. When evidence pointed to the contrary he changed what he wrote and was never afraid of self correction on any issue.


  • Options
    #41
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, that's a pretty flimsy and transparent strawman you got there...
    No it's not. That's the opposite to an "imperialist war of aggression". If this is a biased interpretation then please enlighten me as to what exactly the Iraq war is/was then,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you reinstate the actual OP please?
    It's there as post 5.


  • Options
    #43
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    decimatio wrote: »
    That's not why the West removed him but it was a benefit of his removal.

    Yes that's a large part of why they did it.

    The WMD's were, the sponsoring of Al Qaeda was not. In either case it's irrelevant to me and unless I'm very much mistaken it was irrelevant to Hitchens.

    Hitchens wrote what he accepted to be the truth at the time with the evidence available. When evidence pointed to the contrary he changed what he wrote and was never afraid of self correction on any issue.
    Everything you've said is false. "The West" didn't remove him; Bush and Blair did.

    Even years into the occupation of Iraq when no WMD was found Hitchens was claiming that Saddam just hid them really, really well. He also pushed the bull**** that Atta was meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague.

    It's unbelievable to me that you can say with a straight face that now with the benefit of hindsight and all the lies exposed that a "large part" of why the US invaded Iraq was due to actually believing the lies that they created themselves.


  • Options
    #44
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    It's there as post 5.
    Yes. But could you reinstate it as the actual OP, as in post 1.

    i am interested in getting an answer to the OP.


  • Options
    #45
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes. But could you reinstate it as the actual OP, as in post 1.

    i am interested in getting an answer to the OP.
    Have you tried google?


  • Options
    #46
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No it's not. That's the opposite to an "imperialist war of aggression". If this is a biased interpretation then please enlighten me as to what exactly the Iraq war is/was then,
    Why? It's not relevant. It not being an imperialist was does not mean that I or others believe it must be the complete opposite. Nor does it follow that what you claim actually is the exact opposite in the first place.
    But that's all not important to my point.

    And why would I bother offering a complex definition when you've just ignored my points entirely.

    So again:
    But as I've pointed out, both Hitchens and Orwell both believed in direct, aggressive actions, including war to deal with evil regimes.
    Both Hitchens and Orwell did not support the ideas of torture and spying on your own people and spoke out against it.

    Please point out exactly what is incorrect in those statements.


  • Options
    #47
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why? It's not relevant.
    Your opinion in a discussion on what we are discussing is "not relevant"? Why are you afraid to give your opinion?


  • Options
    #48
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Have you tried google?
    yes.


  • Options
    #49
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    It is impossible to make war on an abstract concept, such as "terror", and atheists, as atheists, do not make war on anything.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    religion-war.jpg?w=360&h=252


  • Options
    #50
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    It is impossible to make war on an abstract concept, such as "terror", and atheists, as atheists, do not make war on anything.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Who is the "we" when Sam Harris says "we are at war with Islam"?


  • Options
    #51
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your opinion in a discussion on what we are discussing is "not relevant"? Why are you afraid to give your opinion?
    I explained why it's not relevant.
    How I define the motivations behind the war has no baring on how those motivations can be defined.
    And since they can be defined as a war to remove an evil regime just as much as it can be defined as a "imperialistic war" we can argue that Orwell would have supported it.

    The reason I'm not elaborating is 1) because it irrelevant and 2) because you are simply looking for an excuse to avoid my points as usual, I see no reason to indulge you.
    But as I've pointed out, both Hitchens and Orwell both believed in direct, aggressive actions, including war to deal with evil regimes.
    Both Hitchens and Orwell did not support the ideas of torture and spying on your own people and spoke out against it.

    Please point out exactly what is incorrect in those statements.
    Is it that you can't actually point out what's wrong with the above thus can't actually show were Hitchens and Orwell might disagree?
    If you keep ignoring the questions as you are it looks exactly like this is the case and we'll may as well just assume so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    You are not making any sense. Let's start from the beginning again
    1. It (Iraq) was an imperialist war of aggression.
    2. Orwell was passionately anti-imperialist.
    3. Hitchens was one of the chief cheerleaders for this illegal war.
    4. Therefore Orwell would have despised his position if not the man himself.

    Which of the above points is incorrect? _

    And just as important why.

    BTW I am looking for actual reasons, not "it is wrong because you are biased and you said it".


  • Options
    #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are not making any sense. Let's start from the beginning again

    And just as important why.

    BTW I am looking for actual reasons, not "it is wrong because you are biased and you said it".
    Avoiding the points again....

    My point doesn't even require that your interpretation is wrong (though it is).
    It only requires that there are other possible interpretations.

    For Hitchens the war wasn't imperialistic, it was a war to remove an evil regime.
    And Orwell was very much in support of that type of war.

    Just because you think that the war was imperialistic it doesn't mean other people do.
    Your premise would only hold up if you can show that Hitchens believed it was an imperialist war and supported it because of that.

    So again, please address my point:
    But as I've pointed out, both Hitchens and Orwell both believed in direct, aggressive actions, including war to deal with evil regimes.
    Both Hitchens and Orwell did not support the ideas of torture and spying on your own people and spoke out against it.

    Please point out exactly what is incorrect in those statements.


  • Options
    #54
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    But could you reinstate it as the actual OP, as in post 1.
    Boards posts are listed in the order in which they were made. So - lacking the god-like power to change the past - the order stands.


  • Options
    #55
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

    By using the term "militant atheist" i was trying to distinguish between people who don't believe in a God (atheist) such as Chomsky and people like Sam Harris.

    Incidentally, Chomsky considers both Harris and Hitchens "religious fanatics".
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY

    So basically you "define" militant atheist as someone who supports the war on terror - then challenge us to find one who doesn't?


  • Options
    #56
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    pH wrote: »
    So basically you "define" militant atheist as someone who supports the war on terror - then challenge us to find one who doesn't?
    To be fair, militant atheist meaning an atheist in favour of a military campaign is the most acceptable use of the phrase I've come across, usually it's used to describe an atheist that says things theists disagree with, which makes no sense what so ever.

    Note most acceptable, we're still a long way from the correct usage of the word "militant".


  • Options
    #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes. But could you reinstate it as the actual OP, as in post 1.

    i am interested in getting an answer to the OP.


    Given the level of intellectual dishonesty you indulge in, I doubt many are going to bother.


  • Options
    #58
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Avoiding the points again....

    My point doesn't even require that your interpretation is wrong (though it is).
    It only requires that there are other possible interpretations.

    For Hitchens the war wasn't imperialistic, it was a war to remove an evil regime.
    And Orwell was very much in support of that type of war.

    Just because you think that the war was imperialistic it doesn't mean other people do.
    Your premise would only hold up if you can show that Hitchens believed it was an imperialist war and supported it because of that.

    So again, please address my point:
    But as I've pointed out, both Hitchens and Orwell both believed in direct, aggressive actions, including war to deal with evil regimes.
    Both Hitchens and Orwell did not support the ideas of torture and spying on your own people and spoke out against it.

    Please point out exactly what is incorrect in those statements.
    For Hitchen's the war wasn't "imperialistic"? Really? He thought they were going to kill Saddam and then say to the free people of Iraq "there you go lads, enjoy Freedom and Starbucks" and then ride off into the sunset.

    It's an inescapable fact that Hitchen's like everyone else in the world knew that an invasion would involve US control of Iraq as soon as they had defeated the army. This is imperialism.

    Please point out what the war in Iraq was if it was not an "imperialist war of aggression".


  • Options
    #59
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    Boards posts are listed in the order in which they were made. So - lacking the god-like power to change the past - the order stands.

    Fair enough. I'll start the thread again then.


  • Options
    #60
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current new-atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror" (and it's post-Bush rebranding).

    Also of interest - if they exist - would be debates between new-atheists who differ on the subject or articles/interviews etc where they are critical of each other's views.

    Another area I am curious about is whether the new-atheists have in general criticised Obama, the Liberal to the same extent as Bush, the fundamental Christian to the same extent for carrying out the same or similar policies.


    Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    For Hitchen's the war wasn't "imperialistic"? Really? He thought they were going to kill Saddam and then say to the free people of Iraq "there you go lads, enjoy Freedom and Starbucks" and then ride off into the sunset.

    It's an inescapable fact that Hitchen's like everyone else in the world knew that an invasion would involve US control of Iraq as soon as they had defeated the army. This is imperialism.

    Please point out what the war in Iraq was if it was not an "imperialist war of aggression".

    I find your name ironic since judging from your posts the only colours you can see are black and white.


Advertisement