Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]cpwm17
(3,829 posts)166. Here's some extreme bloodlust from Hitchens
Here's an example of Hitchen's bloodlust at the Freedom From Religion Convention as reported by Professor PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php
Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. 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. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now Rudy Giuliani and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. 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. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.
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.
This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.
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.
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.
This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.
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.
Hitchens was essentially an extreme religious fundamentalist, with atheism as his religion. I know atheism isn't a religion, but Hitchens treated atheism like it was a religion. Hitchens wanted a crusade against Muslims. He was out of his mind.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
234 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm not a Christian... well not for 45 years now, but I agree with those upthread. He was a bigot.
TalkingDog
Dec 2011
#72
Maybe you should learn more about Hitchens' actual position and his actual works in his life
inademv
Dec 2011
#2
You mean like in '07 where he was whining that we weren't killing enough Muslims?
Posteritatis
Dec 2011
#22
Do you piss on everyone's graves or just those that knew how to use the English language properly?
truebrit71
Dec 2011
#219
His voice could barely be heard over Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al
paparush
Dec 2011
#148
In the end, he became a neo-con, many of whom claimed to be converts from the Left.
Romulox
Dec 2011
#8
I can see how you would get that impression from reading an evaluation by someone who listen to him
inademv
Dec 2011
#169
He was. He had my attention until he turned right wing. That pissed me off. nt
Sarah Ibarruri
Dec 2011
#9
he is like too many idiots. he lived at the extremes of left and right and mocked nuance
roguevalley
Dec 2011
#27
I sometimes think he switched because it allowed him to make more money. I don't know. nt
Sarah Ibarruri
Dec 2011
#34
And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples.
DFab420
Dec 2011
#11
Yea and what kind of liberals accuse writers of crimes against humanity over writing about opinions?
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#15
And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples.
AlbertCat
Dec 2011
#163
I think the 29 Senate Democrats who voted to allow Bush to go to war deserve greater condemnation.
MNBrewer
Dec 2011
#14
He believed it was a fight worth having for various reasons. I see his reasons, but I don't believe
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#65
No. I heard and read Hitchens argue in favor of continued fighting in Iraq post saddam.
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#77
Wait for something like an Arab Spring to occur and treat it with a similar fashion as we did Egypt.
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#106
Well we were having a debate about it, if you don't care to continue that then that is unfortunate
inademv
Dec 2011
#109
No, they dont deserve ANY condemnation. There was nothing wrong with that vote as I explained here
stevenleser
Dec 2011
#55
Nope, they don't. The IWR authorized war only if UN Resolutions were not followed. At the time IWR
stevenleser
Dec 2011
#87
So wait, because they voted to go to war before the inspection was complete they get a pass? n/t
inademv
Dec 2011
#91
Which makes sense if you remember the conditions under which the IWR was created
stevenleser
Dec 2011
#114
No level of weapontry they had or could get in a small timeframe would have been a threat to
inademv
Dec 2011
#133
The wording is right in the resolution. You ignore it because it proves you incorrect. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2011
#122
I don't think he would take credit for that war. And it wouldn't be false modesty.
immoderate
Dec 2011
#20
On the one hand, I understand it, he hated religious zealotry particularly as the ruling order of a
stevenleser
Dec 2011
#57
North Korea's role in nuclear proliferation (and thus global destablization)
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#32
“Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people...
Ian David
Dec 2011
#76
Whether Hitchens was for or against the Iraq war made no fucking difference
Burma Jones
Dec 2011
#95
limbaugh and sons, with 1000 coordinated radio stations and paid callers, endorsed by our universiti
certainot
Dec 2011
#119
The US government chose to go to war without any input from Hitchens.
ChadwickHenryWard
Dec 2011
#110
no one heard hitchens compared to team limbaugh, the real chickenhawk cheerleaders for iraq attack
certainot
Dec 2011
#116
Hitchens was wrong like so many in his assessment of the Iraq war, however, he did not vote or make
Pisces
Dec 2011
#141
Hitchens had a tart tongue and was 100% wrong about the war, but was often right on issues
REP
Dec 2011
#144
So *, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. played no part in taking us to war?
laconicsax
Dec 2011
#149
Let it die, folks, DTTO has been evicted from the thread by virtue of two hidden posts. n/t
Ms. Toad
Dec 2011
#170