What was so great about Hitchens again?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
What was so great about Hitchens again?

I caused a major shitstorm on facebook over him.

 

What exactly did he bring to the atheist movement that was so unique? I've seen some of his debates and read some of his articles, and the things addressing atheism and religion, I've either seen before, or had faulty logic.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

 

                                                              He had a really cool accent.  What else do you need ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                              He had a really cool accent.  What else do you need ?

 

Well, now I'm convinced. Good job.

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                              He had a really cool accent.  What else do you need ?

 

Well, now I'm convinced. Good job.

 

 

No really that is about it as far as I can tell. He was a bit more aggressive than the others in his stance, I guess people liked that regardless of his actual merit.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2974
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
He was one of us. One of us

He was one of us. One of us who had broken the trance put on so many others.

He was aggressive and it was sort of refreshing. I liked his accent too. lol

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:No really that

Tapey wrote:

No really that is about it as far as I can tell. He was a bit more aggressive than the others in his stance, I guess people liked that regardless of his actual merit.

 

This whole thing started when I called him an immoral war monger, and it seems that people were quick to condemn me for that.

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:This

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

This whole thing started when I called him an immoral war monger, and it seems that people were quick to condemn me for that.

 

 

Sure he was immoral by many peoples standards. So what? 

 

Warmonger? Hardly, unless your definition of "warmonger" is anyone who supported the current war in Iraq. He was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and several of the smaller engagements that have occurred since then. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Sure

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Sure he was immoral by many peoples standards. So what? 

 

Then why do so many people support him?

 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Warmonger? Hardly, unless your definition of "warmonger" is anyone who supported the current war in Iraq. He was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and several of the smaller engagements that have occurred since then. 

 

If Bush was against the Vietnam war, does that exclude him from being a warmonger?

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Beyond

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Sure he was immoral by many peoples standards. So what? 

 

Then why do so many people support him?

 

 

Because so many people don't give a rats ass whether or not someone is moral especially when it comes to enjoying that persons writings/speaking. Good news for Hollywood, they would be SOL if people only watched actors/actresses they considered moral.  

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Warmonger? Hardly, unless your definition of "warmonger" is anyone who supported the current war in Iraq. He was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and several of the smaller engagements that have occurred since then. 

 

If Bush was against the Vietnam war, does that exclude him from being a warmonger?

 

Do you consider Bush a warmonger? Do you consider Obama a warmonger? Then why didn't we just conquer Iraq and take it over? Guess they don't make warmongers like they used to.

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
A good writer

Even if one doesn't agree with some of his political opinions, in regards to atheism he was a heavy hitter.

He had great skill with rhetoric, was very well read, had an excellent memory and a quick mind. All very useful in debates.

I found 'God is not Great' to be an entertaining read that succinctly summarised certain issues.

For example, one may have a good idea about the nature of certain flaws in some religious arguments, but he could encapsulate the argument in a few clear paragraphs.

My inarticulacy in this attempt to explain myself here reminds me again how good he was.

He also liked a drink and a fag.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Even if one doesn't

x wrote:

Even if one doesn't agree with some of his political opinions, in regards to atheism he was a heavy hitter.

He had great skill with rhetoric, was very well read, had an excellent memory and a quick mind. All very useful in debates.

I found 'God is not Great' to be an entertaining read that succinctly summarised certain issues.

For example, one may have a good idea about the nature of certain flaws in some religious arguments, but he could encapsulate the argument in a few clear paragraphs.

My inarticulacy in this attempt to explain myself here reminds me again how good he was.

He also liked a drink and a fag.

 

My sentiments exactly. His other books, about Paine, Orwell and Kissinger were great works as well. His auto-biography was fascinating and he was a great journalist and prolific writer on many issues. He was also a great debater and could put it into laymen's terms where the ordinary public could understand it, all the while sounding very educated. 

Also, he did not follow any political party blindly. He could piss off liberals and conservatives alike because he stood up for what HE believed in and not what some political party stated. 

I thought he was awesome.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
x, are you British?

x, are you British?


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
A bit

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

x, are you British?

Born in Australia, but from when I was 25, lived in London for 20 years.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Cpt_pineapple

x wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

x, are you British?

Born in Australia, but from when I was 25, lived in London for 20 years.

 

Yeah because "fag" usually mean a homosexual in North America. I know you meant smoke though.

 

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Sort of

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Yeah because "fag" usually mean a homosexual in North America. I know you meant smoke though.

 

I was being deliberately ambiguous, as you probably noticed.

He enjoyed both at times and that's fine by me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                              He had a really cool accent.  What else do you need ?

As an aside love your avatar Pro.

But as to the OP, Hitchens wasn't saying anything new that other atheists were not  saying. What he did add was the WAY he advocated. He was a cross between a hornet and Shakespeare. Eloquence and sting. He was a unique kick in the pants, not only to theists, but to atheists to get off their duffs and not be afraid of theists. He certainly was a motivating factor for me.

No one person got me started on my path. But Hitchens was a motivator for me in my everyday life to not be afraid of theism.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I would say it was his

 I would say it was his quick wit in debates. Some publicly said they were afraid to debate him. He wasn't always right, but he knew how to turn a phrase and level his opponent. His stuff on the immorality of the blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins really helped me and made me realize the ==core== of Christianity is evil. 

How is it that they criticize pagans for sacrificing virgins to their god but the jesus bloody sacrifice is right.  Aren't just as barbaric and just as meaningless? 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I caused a major shitstorm on facebook over him.

What exactly did he bring to the atheist movement that was so unique? I've seen some of his debates and read some of his articles, and the things addressing atheism and religion, I've either seen before, or had faulty logic.

He was the media's token atheist as in, "We have nothing against atheists and we can prove it." He was also theit token alcoholic if that matters.

The media uses self-designated, unelected spokesmen when it wants to air the opinion of the entire token community. The news is intended to be entertainment. Rent Network. Prophetic.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: But as to

Brian37 wrote:

 

But as to the OP, Hitchens wasn't saying anything new that other atheists were not  saying. What he did add was the WAY he advocated. He was a cross between a hornet and Shakespeare. Eloquence and sting. He was a unique kick in the pants, not only to theists, but to atheists to get off their duffs and not be afraid of theists. He certainly was a motivating factor for me.

No one person got me started on my path. But Hitchens was a motivator for me in my everyday life to not be afraid of theism.

 

My sentiments exactly. Everybody has heard of the famous "Hitchslap". The guy was not afraid to tackle any subject. Not many people would have had the guts to expose Mother Teresa for the fraud and lunatic that she was. Hitchens showed where she accepted money from mass murdering dictators and her homes for the dying were inhumane (one former nun in his documentary even talked about them re-using syringes on several patients or simply rinsing them off before re-using them). Most of the money she collected was given to the Vatican and not to improve the poverty in India. She also pushed for laws against contraception and traveled all the way to Ireland, to make sure that divorce could not be made legal. Hitchens exposed all of that. 

Hitchens always had a swift response to any theist and could make them look like absolute fools. One of the best debaters that I have ever seen. 

Like you Brian, he was one of the first people that guided me towards being an open, out of the closet Atheist ( I used to be afraid of debating theists for a long time). 

After reading people like Hitchens and Dawkins, as well as this site, I am not afraid of telling people I am an Atheist nor am I afraid of debating anyone.

Plus, Hitchens book, god is not great, was very eloquent, but it was also written where the average person could comprehend it. Very few people can write like, that.

As much as I like Daniel Dennett, when I read his books, I have to read a page, pause for a few minutes and think about what I have read. (I even had to take notes on Freedom evolves lol).

While I like all of the four horsemen, Hitchens was my favorite. 

The man was educated on many issues. I saw him make an absolute fool out of Bill O'Reilly one time, over a foreign policy issue. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
This whole thing started when I called him an immoral war monger, and it seems that people were quick to condemn me for that.

Sure he was immoral by many peoples standards. So what? 

Warmonger? Hardly, unless your definition of "warmonger" is anyone who supported the current war in Iraq. He was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and several of the smaller engagements that have occurred since then. 

It was an unprovoked war meaning it was a criminal war within the meaning of the conventions of war and the US charter. That means tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were murdered as they attempted to defend their country from foreign invasion.

Supporting it is no different from supporting the Soviet and Nazi invasions of Poland.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It was an

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It was an unprovoked war meaning it was a criminal war within the meaning of the conventions of war and the US charter. That means tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were murdered as they attempted to defend their country from foreign invasion.

Supporting it is no different from supporting the Soviet and Nazi invasions of Poland.

While I agree with you about the Iraq War, even provoked/non-criminal war involves mass killing on both sides...

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It was an unprovoked war meaning it was a criminal war within the meaning of the conventions of war and the US charter. That means tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were murdered as they attempted to defend their country from foreign invasion.

Supporting it is no different from supporting the Soviet and Nazi invasions of Poland.

While I agree with you about the Iraq War, even provoked/non-criminal war involves mass killing on both sides...

 

 

Has there ever been a non criminal war? What could a country do that an invasion is the only legitimate response?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I never concerned myself

I never concerned myself much with celebrities in general. Atheist celebrities are no exception. But I do recognise that a significant enough portion of the population gives enough of a fuck to support hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crap, so I am glad there are atheist celebrities and I won't criticise them just because they said something controversial. Even though personally the whole celebrity worship thing never made much more sense than religion to me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It was an unprovoked war meaning it was a criminal war within the meaning of the conventions of war and the US charter. That means tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were murdered as they attempted to defend their country from foreign invasion.

Supporting it is no different from supporting the Soviet and Nazi invasions of Poland.

While I agree with you about the Iraq War, even provoked/non-criminal war involves mass killing on both sides...

Only one side starts it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's rarely true. Both

That's rarely true. Both sides are almost always equally to blame. It takes two to tango.
In fact, I can't even think of one war that all sides didn't share some responsibility for.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
That's rarely true. Both sides are almost always equally to blame. It takes two to tango. In fact, I can't even think of one war that all sides didn't share some responsibility for.

Damn those Poles.

Damn those Iraqis.

Lets not forget the soon to be damned Iranians.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Amazing how every single

Amazing how every single scenario you just mentioned have two sides to blame. At least.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
@the OP

 Boring confrontationalists are boring and confrontational. Ok, so he was a clever "debater"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...why is that important? Oh wait, it isnt. /rolls_eyes 

CP, I'll be joining your condemnation, soon, hopefully Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to plead the 5th

I'm going to plead the 5th now and suggest I hold cj's view of debates; that they are pointless, aimed at the ego of their participants and easy to render meaningless and deconstruct.

I'm also going to suggest that CP hangs out with unapologetic reactionists who have difficulty crawling out of a mud hole they land themselves into. One of them lives near Mason, Georgia.

 

I'd also suggest many couldn't contemplate their way out of a paper bag, because it requires too much rationalism for their temperamental ways.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Zachary44
Theist
Posts: 38
Joined: 2012-03-24
User is offlineOffline
brian37 wrote:As an aside

brian37 wrote:

As an aside love your avatar Pro.

But as to the OP, Hitchens wasn't saying anything new that other atheists were not  saying. What he did add was the WAY he advocated. He was a cross between a hornet and Shakespeare. Eloquence and sting. He was a unique kick in the pants, not only to theists, but to atheists to get off their duffs and not be afraid of theists. He certainly was a motivating factor for me.

No one person got me started on my path. But Hitchens was a motivator for me in my everyday life to not be afraid of theism.

I find this interesting. I agree that Hitchens was a very good philosopher and a very smart guy, but he still was destroyed by william layne Craig in his debates. You fail to mention that his philosophy was brought down by a Theist. Hitchens was a very angry person, and if that is coming from the person you all look up to, i would look elsewhere. He had no hope in life.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Any man that can sit in the

Any man that can sit in the same room with a religious windbag, debate him like a professional, tolerate his backwards views and petty jabs from the audience Q&A has my respect.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Amazing how every single scenario you just mentioned have two sides to blame. At least.

I didn't realize you had actually studied the real causes of those wars. I thought I was the only one.

Since you have you know Poland was far from blameless. However I have yet to find any cause for the 2003 Iraq conquest. What have you found?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A few old powers and America

A few old powers and America have used the Middle East as their playground for centuries (though the Americans have only been involved since WWII to my knowledge, they've still arguably fucked the region over more than any power since the crusades). That has caused epic resentment and instability in the region.
Hell, it was America that installed Hussein.
Not to mention the hypocritical hoarding of nuclear technology by the West.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zachary44 wrote:I find this

Zachary44 wrote:
I find this interesting. I agree that Hitchens was a very good philosopher and a very smart guy, but he still was destroyed by william layne Craig in his debates. You fail to mention that his philosophy was brought down by a Theist. Hitchens was a very angry person, and if that is coming from the person you all look up to, i would look elsewhere. He had no hope in life.

William couldn't defeat a prepared 6 year old. He never owned anyone. And you want to talk to US about worshipping idiots? lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A few old

Vastet wrote:
A few old powers and America have used the Middle East as their playground for centuries (though the Americans have only been involved since WWII to my knowledge, they've still arguably fucked the region over more than any power since the crusades). That has caused epic resentment and instability in the region. Hell, it was America that installed Hussein. Not to mention the hypocritical hoarding of nuclear technology by the West.

"true"

It's been the distinctly "American" attitude that intelligence actions, even towards their own citizens, are justified.

The phrase "MK ULTRA" comes immediately to mind.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Zachary44

Vastet wrote:
Zachary44 wrote:
I find this interesting. I agree that Hitchens was a very good philosopher and a very smart guy, but he still was destroyed by william layne Craig in his debates. You fail to mention that his philosophy was brought down by a Theist. Hitchens was a very angry person, and if that is coming from the person you all look up to, i would look elsewhere. He had no hope in life.

 

William couldn't defeat a prepared 6 year old. He never owned anyone. And you want to talk to US about worshipping idiots? lol

 

My sentiments exactly Vastet. William Layne Craig is a moron. Even someone like ME could defeat him in a debate. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
A few old powers and America have used the Middle East as their playground for centuries (though the Americans have only been involved since WWII to my knowledge, they've still arguably fucked the region over more than any power since the crusades). That has caused epic resentment and instability in the region. Hell, it was America that installed Hussein. Not to mention the hypocritical hoarding of nuclear technology by the West.

Yes but ... What did to cause the 2003 invasion and conquest?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Did you mean to ask: What

Did you mean to ask:

What did Iraq do to cause the 2003 invasion and conquest?

If so, nothing. Nothing new anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Did you mean to

Vastet wrote:
Did you mean to ask: What did Iraq do to cause the 2003 invasion and conquest? If so, nothing. Nothing new anyway.

Heh. OIF/Iraqi occupation/civil war was a lost cause in 2007, and most of the "administration" at the time, knew it. We were basically at war with Iraq's people, rather than their faction leaders.

How many lives have been fucked  up or thrown away senselessly because one group of idiots couldn't admit they were wrong?

Far too many, in my mind.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


chuck1al
chuck1al's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Iraq, you been asleep, we did take it over.

Was Bush a warmonger, well you must have taken a 10 year nap to have missed the US, taking over Iraq.

Chuck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
chuck1al wrote:Was Bush a

chuck1al wrote:

Was Bush a warmonger, well you must have taken a 10 year nap to have missed the US, taking over Iraq.

then getting pushed out.

 

Lemme ask you something: how many American wars have been fought over a lie a la "Curveball"?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Vastet

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Amazing how every single scenario you just mentioned have two sides to blame. At least.

I didn't realize you had actually studied the real causes of those wars. I thought I was the only one.

Since you have you know Poland was far from blameless. However I have yet to find any cause for the 2003 Iraq conquest. What have you found?

If you'd studied the causes of the wars you discuss you'd do more than chant your version of "Four legs good! Two legs bad!".

Then again, if you did that, you probably wouldn't be such a good cheerleader for the Israelis and the good Christians that want them dead so Jesus can come.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
chuck1al wrote:Was Bush a

chuck1al wrote:

Was Bush a warmonger, well you must have taken a 10 year nap to have missed the US, taking over Iraq.

To be honest, I believe Iraq was just a distraction from the US failure to bring the 9/11 criminals to justice after many many months and a large number of US casualties.
Many people think oil was the goal, but I can't believe that Bush and co. were so crazy as to think they could secure Iraq's oil without a complete conquering of the country. The kind of conquering that hasn't happened in centuries. It just doesn't add up.

It worked (in the US anyway, though not so much outside the US) for a number of reasons, primarily because Hussein was still in power despite the results of the Gulf war. And he was still refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
Though I'd argue he had every right to refuse to cooperate. Iraq's signature isn't present on the non-proliferation treaty, and Iraq was an independent nation, under no power's authority.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
He was someone relatively

He was someone relatively well known who was well spoken and ..well spoken. Good enough for me. I enjoyed listening to his debates.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:He was someone

robj101 wrote:

He was someone relatively well known who was well spoken and ..well spoken. Good enough for me. I enjoyed listening to his debates.

Where the hell have you been?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: To be honest,

Vastet wrote:
To be honest, I believe Iraq was just a distraction from the US failure to bring the 9/11 criminals to justice after many many months and a large number of US casualties. Many people think oil was the goal, but I can't believe that Bush and co. were so crazy as to think they could secure Iraq's oil without a complete conquering of the country. The kind of conquering that hasn't happened in centuries. It just doesn't add up. It worked (in the US anyway, though not so much outside the US) for a number of reasons, primarily because Hussein was still in power despite the results of the Gulf war. And he was still refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors. Though I'd argue he had every right to refuse to cooperate. Iraq's signature isn't present on the non-proliferation treaty, and Iraq was an independent nation, under no power's authority.

 

That (at best) is a mostly legalistic PoV. You might have noticed that we (like most of the world's nations) do not necessarily need 'legal' permission to go to war with someone. It's true of numerous African and Afghan warlords, at least. It's also true of the US.

A better reason to demonstrate how 'wrong' we were in going to war with Iraq is that casus beli couldn't be made on one man's (Curveball's) word alone. Yet the warhawk republican voters I've seen attempt to debate this make apologetics about Hussein saying this or that about wanting to attack the US with WMDs being a real casus beli makes me want to laugh. They were attempting to justify Dogma Dubya's behaviors and actions during his first term. They also pulled out every tortured rationalization to 'move goal posts' around and invent new justifications for war with a foreign power. "They threatened us". "He sold his chemical and biological weapons to his neighbors (Syria, SA, Egypt, etc)". "He has armed militants and islamics that hate the US". "His dog ate the WMDs".

I'm thinking some of the participants in the discussions I read HAD to be aware of Curveball's and Bush's "BIG LIE", if not actively attempting to sweep it under the rug.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I caused

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I caused a major shitstorm on facebook over him.

 

What exactly did he bring to the atheist movement that was so unique? I've seen some of his debates and read some of his articles, and the things addressing atheism and religion, I've either seen before, or had faulty logic.

 

 

Well you've heard it before because good reasoning is just as good the second time it's said.  About the logic...well I'm sure he mader some mistakes, we all do.  I can offer you a specific real and personal example of what hitchens did for the movement.  About 5 years ago I thought I was the only peron on the planet who had serious issues with religions and their dogma.  I knew some people were athiests, but I had no idea so many people thought like me and spoke out loud what they felt and debated fiercy.  One day I randomly decided I would type "religious debate" on youtube search, I thoght i wouldn't hit much, I had no idea how huge an issue it was, and how many people were discussing and strongly arguing it.  I seriously had it figured that religion was a non issue to everyone, and people were just religious and that was that and nobody cared or thought in to the actual teachings.  The very first video I watched from my youtube search was the debate between hitchens and boetech that incredibly annoying jewish rabii.  Their I was, 2 am couldn't sleep, being intoxicated by hitchens' wordplay and vinigar.  The way he made his points and voiced his objection... it was awesome... I just had no idea people out their were thinking like me, and arguing their positions in official and public events.  I was glues to that debate, the first religious debate I ever watched, like a piece of maceronni to you kids kindergarden artproject.  And I was hooked, I had to hear more.

 

From their I spent years watching more and more debates, which led me to the athiest experience show from austin which offered a neverending source of discussions.  From their I came accross the debate between sapient/kelly and religitards cameron and bananaman which then ofcourse led me hear, where I have hung around for quite a while now and learned so much.  This long journey and change for me started with christopher hitchens, it surely would have happened somehow in another way but it might not have been so quick if I haden't have been so drawn in to the rockstar that was Hitchens.  Hitchens will always be a rockstar, very few people in the world can attract peoplewith their character and wordplay like Hitchens, and so for that alone he s done a shitload for the cause.  I imagine many have been inspired by something he said, or simply by him in some way at some time.   


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3283
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
honestly, i think 90% of the

honestly, i think 90% of the fascination with both hitchens and dawkins is nothing more than the weird american reverence for the cultured british accent.  no matter how well he made his points, i wager far fewer people would have paid attention to hitch had he talked like someone from north dakota.

never cared much for the british accent myself.  in my mind, no one will ever sound more authoritative or intelligent than the great shelby foote.

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: never cared

iwbiek wrote:

 

never cared much for the british accent myself...

 

 

      I've always been captivated by Stephen Hawking and his voice synthesizer.  Nothing captures an audience more than someone who sounds like an emotionless android.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )