Bitch About Hitchens Here

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's what turned my stomach just a little bit. There is no "but", Hitchens came across as homicidal in his bloodlust at times yet for those who idolise him this is somehow supposed to be acceptable because he didn't believe in God, and had a sharp turn of phrase.

For example, PZ Myers, Professor of Biology at UMM attended a talk he gave in 2007 where Hitchens advocated genocide.

That's quite possibly the most ignorant post I have ever had the misfortune of coming across.

PZ wrote:

Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy.

Absolutely agree. Islamic terrorism needs to be destroyed.

We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up.

I wouldn't say the only solution but it's hard not to admit that this is looking increasingly likely to be the safest course of action.

The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

PZ Meyers should know better than to say something so blatantly false. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Hitchens' works would immediately see it as such. Hitchens advocates killing Islamic terrorists not Muslims in general and this is so obvious from the mans books, speeches and debates that it's sad that I need to point it out.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy

Absolutely agree. Islamic terrorists need to be destroyed. It's foolish to think you can negotiate with these people. They have no interest in negotiation, they have no interest in compromise which they have proven time and time again.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

Absolute nonsense from PZ. Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists, or any other label you wish to apply does not equal Muslim.

It's a well known fact that Hitchens supports the Kurds, of whom the vast majority are Muslim, right to their own homeland as well as supporting Muslims who fight the Taliban and other Islamist extremists all over the world. Is he supporting them now only to wish them all dead later ?

Hitchens never advocated genocide against Muslims, he advocated the destruction of Islamic terrorists and Theocratic states such as Iran.

To confuse what he says about this with some kind of genocidal belief against all Muslims is ignorance of a caliber I would have thought impossible to come from someone such as Professor Meyers.

The talk that Meyers is talking about can be watched here.





And the most ignorant statement of the lot, that killing Islamic terrorists will simply make more. That by attacking the Taliban and people like them that we simply make them stronger, that we create more and more terrorists.

These people are not attacking the civilised world because of what it does, they are attacking the civilised world for what it is. We are being attacked because we exist and that is an unforgivable crime to these people.

And from the same speech by Hitchens which PZ is talking about comes his take on this.






In this video, for those who don't wish to watch it, Hitchens explains how the number 3 charge on Bin Ladens list of accusations against the West is that the US and it's allies had the audacity to aid the people of East Timor from a Muslim country, Indonesia, committing genocide against the people of East Timor.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yeah! Kill 'em all! :rolleyes:

Yes kill terrorists. Imprison terrorists. Fight terrorists.

(I would like to come back to your post when I have time)

If all you've got is nonsensical claims of genocidal tendencies from Hitchens don't bother. What you've written so far has been self defeating dribble so I can't imagine you're going to suddenly come out with anything better than more ad hominem tripe.

the_antagonist wrote: »

Yes kill terrorists. Imprison terrorists. Fight terrorists.



.

suppose that would kind of depend on your definition of terrorist

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

sensibleken wrote: »

suppose that would kind of depend on your definition of terrorist

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

Last time I checked people investigating factory farms weren't packing automatic rifles and trying to blow people up.

Or are you suggesting I need to specify when arrest and subsequent imprisonment is the correct course of action as opposed to killing terrorists who refuse to surrender ?

I think it would be condescending to do so.

the_antagonist wrote: »

Last time I checked people investigating factory farms weren't packing automatic rifles and trying to blow people up.

Or are you suggesting I need to specify when arrest and subsequent imprisonment is the correct course of action as opposed to killing terrorists who refuse to surrender ?

I think it would be condescending to do so.

nope. i was just pointing out that the terrorist label is used quite liberaly by those prosecuting the war on terror and has been used as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later (though usually without the asking questions bit)

pH wrote: »

...Firstly most impartial observers estimate the civilian death toll at 100,000 - 150,000 - not 1 million as is being claimed.

Even with the 100,000 figure...

100,000?
An absolute joke of a figure. And you're appealing for accuracy?

That IBC is definitely not an accurate figure. It's dismissed by many and is otherwise derisively known as the "Western Media body-count".

It's ironic that people who wish to find an accurate figure will completely ignore scientific surveys such as the Lancet in favour of biased media estimates..

"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been
654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war"
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

"On 25 October, Dai Davies MP asked Gordon Brown about civilian deaths in Iraq. Brown passed the question to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who passed it to his junior minister, Kim Howells, who replied: “We continue to believe that there are no comprehensive or reliable figures for deaths since March 2003.” This was a deception. In October 2006, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. A Freedom of Information search revealed that the government, while publicly dismissing the study, secretly backed it as comprehensive and reliable. The chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Roy Anderson, called its methods “robust” and “close to best practice”. Other senior governments officials secretly acknowledged the survey’s “tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones”. Since then, the British research polling agency, Opinion Research Business, has extrapolated a figure of 1.2 million deaths in Iraq. Thus, the scale of death caused by the British and US governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century."
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/no-tears-no-remorse-for-the-fallen-of-iraq