Death of Christopher Hitchens

[redtreviso]

Contrarian---pffft until it counts

Christopher Hitchens' Unforgivable Mistake

By John Cook, Dec 16, 2011 12:57 PM

In its obituary, the New York Times quoted Hitchens' friend Ian Buruma, who told the New Yorker in 2006 that Hitchens was "always looking for the defining moment — as it were, our Spanish Civil War, where you put yourself on the right side, and stand up to the enemy." He shared that impulse with George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, and they found their moment in the stupid decision to invade Iraq. For Hitchens, it was the opening maneuver in a grand, imagined clash of western civilization against the Islamofascist hordes.

It was something else for 113,000 civilians who died in the chaos unleashed. The great tragedy of Hitchens' life was that, toward its end, he aligned himself so stridently with the very fools, cowards, and charlatans who most desperately invited exposure by his prodigious skills as butcher. How can someone who devoted so much of his life to as noble a cause as destroying the reputation of Henry Kissinger blithely stand shoulder to shoulder with Rumsfeld?

People make mistakes. What's horrible about Hitchens' ardor for the invasion of Iraq is that he clung to it long after it became clear that a grotesque error had been made. In September 2005, he defended the debacle in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard in terms that are simply breathtaking in their lack of concern for the victims of his Mesopotamian adventure. It was headlined "A War to Be Proud Of."

http://gawker.com/5868761/christopher-hitchens-unforgivable-mistake

 

[ChrisE]

Yeah, after that little stand on Iraq I pretty much tuned him out.

 

[movingtarget]

I appreciated Hitchens more in his later years and he was never a dull interview, ever, even if you did not always agree with him. Would I rather watch Hitchens talk about culture and politics or watch celebrity dance shows etc........he was a one off and went down swinging right to the end.

 

[ramjambunath]

In the wake of his death Hitchens, Ive seen as many Hitchens tributes as I could possibly fit into one day, and the key theme of praise for him, coming from all sides is that he was his own man, and crucially not afraid to challnege popular opinion. This came, as well as from his many friends and admirers, rational folks who disagreed with him, but who realise the neccesity of in today's society, having people like Hitchens who argue for the devil (Hitchens was ironically the last person to officially "argue for the devil" when he argued against Theresas cannonisation, just before the Vatican changed the name of the position), and challenge popular or even mob opinion, is essential.

BTw, if you don't mind, ill bring this hard challenge at free speech, to the religion thread.

If you quote that snippet, I'll make sure it's reported. Taking a post out of context. Where did I see that? Interesting. You know not the first **** about me yet make sweeping statements about my views on freedom of speech.

I can see that you're a pauper's Hitchens, reading a few statements and taking it out of context to form an argument full of attacks against a person not the case, where's the defence of the Iraq war and didn't I state that there were 100k Iraqi deaths. I'm still waiting, or maybe you can't read anything remotely criticising your hero. He was a man and not a great one either. He made as many mistakes as everyone else. His was just an opinion and has every reason to be criticised, he isn't an authority on what the world has to support or oppose. If you're incapable of seeing that, then I'm sorry this discussion is a dead end. Logic? It's something that I won't assume with the name Hitchens or you the Hitch. The more i read your posts, the more I lose respect for him as he's indoctrinated a fundamentalist attitude, it's not just associated with Religions you know, in his followers.

It's also nice to see you happily skirt the issues that you can't defend, where's his freedom of speech protest in the middle east? No defence? I'll follow your style of argument to put forward my points and lets see what a 5 year old you sound like.

Let me put this point forward, Al Qaeda praises each of its terror attacks as an act of martyrdom. Extrapolate the same to war to what Hitchens said and here you are defiantly defending it. By the way, where are the points to counter mine, you just fell behind the standard excuse of his views are contrary to others. The acts of the west in the middle east were not indefensible and you won't convince anyone with your clutch at straws argument to defend him on supporting the Iraq war.

By the way, don't think fundamentalism is something that is restricted to religious beliefs. If you're not capable of realising that he was an atheist fundamentalist and that you being a blind follower of his are also turning into one then, I'm sorry you know not nearly as much of the world as you claim.

For me, a person belonging to the developing world and having to see poverty in the real world everyday, I don't need to be preached about humanitarianism from a pseudo intellect's follower.

I'm not a hero worshipper and not closed off to criticism to any individual I respect and I expected those points and I will not defend the points where I can't defend. To the other points though, do you think it is so easy to feed so many poverty ridden members of the society and that it isn't resource intensive stuff, have you even gone to a charity and fed 100 people at a time. You think it's easy to maintain hygiene in a place where thousands of squalid children live? If you don't know this, then shut up because I have fed people voluntarily (and no I'm not a missionary or a religious person) and I know the resources involved. you think it's so easy to be hygienic I'm not an idiot in thinking that every cent that she received was spent for charity but the good she did for society in India, and what she did here was still way more than what Hitchens ever did anywhere or what we can expect from most people and it is clearer for a person who lived a few years in Kolkatta (not Calcutta as you say) than a Polish preacher. Don't preach when you're unaware of the situation, come over before making such stupid sweeping statements. I don't preach to you about Poland because I know **** about it, I expect the same from you as you're not the only person who can read four words at a time. Try finding hundreds of qualified nurses just waiting for employment in India (don't preach about this, I request), she was a missionary and much more of a hero than Hitchens ever was and ever would be but not indefensible. If you're naive enough to believe Kolkatta's poverty will be alleviated with a few million then I can't argue with you but you can as that's all you do everyday at least once.

As for the "lol", I admit I misread your post and I did mean a cartoon of a burning of a flag. At least, I know when to admit I'm wrong which is something I can't attribute to your hero and your half baked arguments.

*** edited by mod ***

 

[The Hitch]

Contrarian---pffft until it counts

Your usual constructive cirtiscsm about how he was a "drunkard" and that poetry about how drunkards admire eachother, is missing.

Yeah, after that little stand on Iraq I pretty much tuned him out.

Can't have contrary opinions can we?

. I'm still waiting, or maybe you can't read anything remotely criticising your hero.

from a pseudo intellect's follower.

I'm not a hero worshipper and not closed off to criticism to any individual I respect and I expected those points and I will not defend the points where I can't defend.

I have responded with argument, to every post made against the man, so the idea that I am closed off to critcism, and the few cheap attempts to paint me as a blind fanboy, are not only insutling but baseless.
Don't worry though, I can take it though

Seemingly better than you, considering the number of insults and swears I see in your post. By contrast my manner throughout this thread has been calm.

As I calmly made clear, in the analysis of your Theresa paragraph, you know very little about Hitchens - the subject of this thread, but like redtreviso and blutto before him, you seem to take a few comments about him from fringe websites, as your guide to his entire life.

Since you know so little about the thread subject, none of what you say has much validity, and as I said before, I won't waste too much time taking every little point.

As the below shows, you do though also seem to be slightly out of touch with logic.

See the list of people who've received the Ratna before speaking out of your arsehole, which must be very large considering the **** you spew.

You may find it insulting that I dismissed your award, but you did use it to form the argument that, because the award is so great Mother Theresa must also be great since she was given it, and if Mother Theresa is great Hitchens must be wrong to critiscise her.

You therefore used the award and some very short and questionable logic, to dismiss an entire book you had not even read.

Ill make the point as best I can.

It doesn't really matter, how prestigious you perceive an award to be, and I don't need to readup on it. To use the award to claim you are right on an issue, is not a legitimate argument. To use it to a dismiss arguments you are unfamiliar with, is worse yet.

But considering this is the type of logic prevalent throughout your posts, Im just not going to spend too much time responding to it.

speaking out of your arsehole, which must be very large considering the **** you spew.

I am a bit glad I got to you

PS. Your attempt to justify how right you are by pointing out that you live in a 3rd world country, might not as persuasive as you seem to think. Based on your track record in this thread, I fear that you will misunderstand the point I am making, so to safeguard against that, I will point out that I am not attacking India, a country Hitchens spent the last decade arguing should be Americas strongest Asian ally.

 

[redtreviso]

Your usual constructive cirtiscsm about how he was a "drunkard" and that poetry about how drunkards admire eachother, is missing.

I am feeling charitable today..

 

[ramjambunath]

Hitch boy, if that's what you understood from my post then I can see why you make so much sense all the time. Knowing from other threads that you're a bit sarcastically challenged, I'm being sarcastic.

I won't even challenge your arguments as it isn't worth it and as you've shown with other users as well, you were asking for a bit of a dressing down by questioning everyone but your lord almighty's intelligence, something I abstained from in all my posts till you did mine.

Only thing that I ask you is, why does it get on your tits if somebody criticises Hitchens post death, isn't that his career trademark?

Anyway, as your posts everywhere have so much insight, it was foolish on my part to even argue.

PS: Insult me as much as you want for finding fault with your "faultless" hero now, I'm not giving a second look at it.

 

[The Hitch]

Only thing that I ask you is, why does it get on your tits if somebody criticises Hitchens post death, isn't that his career trademark?

Don't quite see what post death has to do with it. I'm defending my side as I have always done. As for "getting on my tits" why do you assume this . Maybe if it was "getting on my tits" my postings would be as full of insults and swear words as yours are.

your "faultless" hero now.

your lord almighty'

I am of course a Hitchens fan, but the arguments I make are valid.
You can't just dismiss my arguments by pointing out (in a derogatory manner) that I am a fan.

If you do one day decide to take your great debating skills (see I do understand sarcasm) outside of the internet, you might find that if you try to merely dismiss your opponents as fans, or attack them with insults people will not necessarily be very impressed.

Anyway, as your posts everywhere have so much insight, it was foolish on my part to even argue.

Having actually read the book, I do know more about Hitchen's position regarding Mother Theresa yes.

by questioning everyone but your lord almighty's intelligence, something I abstained from in all my posts till you did mine

Please direct me to where I was questioning everyone else's intelligence. Thank you.

nsult me as much as you want for finding fault with your "faultless" hero now, I'm not giving a second look at it.

Please direct me to where I was "insulting you". Thank you.

I can however direct you to where you were insulting me.

here.

speaking out of your arsehole, which must be very large considering the **** you spew.

here

your lord almighty

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

How about everyone just takes a deep breath and calms down here, ok? I would hate to have to close this thread.....

Susan

 

[Greenflame]

Hitchens was a great writer, a man with a brilliant way with words. That, I don't think even the people who disagreed with everything he said can deny.

I did agree with his defence of free speach, including in the case of the cartoons. His argument against Mother Theresa, while I don't know much about that subject, sounds intreguing, and I will definitely see if I can pick that book up for the Christmas holidays.

I disagreed with many of his arguments. His opinions on the Iraq war and the clash of civilisations between the western and islamic words were, in my opinion, quite ridiculous. And no, that does not mean that I can't handle a differing opinion, just that I very strongly disagreed with his on these subjects.
On other subjects, too, he was too extreme. His criticisms of religions is an example where I think he went too far. It is, in my opinion, not religion itself that is evil, just what people make of it. Fundamentalists religions are just another dogmatic set of beliefs, like communism and market capitalism can be as well.

What is the difference between people going to war to convert another population to their religion, and going to war out of humanitarian reasons such as allowing people their free speech? In both cases the idea is to save another human being and allowing it to reach its full potential, respectively in the next world and in this one.

Western freedoms and human rights are a great thing, but someone who holds these rights dear should never support a 'humanitarian' intervention into another state unless in very extreme situations (although I realise this may seem contradictory) such as Rwanda in 1994. Humanitarian spreading of human rights is just another form of ideational imperialism, just like the crusades, jihads, missionary workers and communist invasions of the past were.

However, to get back to Hitchens, this does not mean that I in any way hate Hitchens or would deny him his right to voice his opinions. I admire his courage to speak up against public opinion, and wish more people such as him existed, especially with the talent with words he posessed.

 

[oldborn]

With his distortion logic chip but somehow brilliant, boomcie impressed me as Hitchens never did.
What Hitchens was really; war profiteer, human rights killer and oil industry PR.

 

[sublimit]

With his distortion logic chip but somehow brilliant, boomcie impressed me as Hitchens never did.
What Hitchens was really; war profiteer, human rights killer and oil industry PR.

Hitchens is obvious and dull as ****. Boomcie is funny..

End of story.

 

[oldborn]

Hitchens is obvious and dull as ****. Boomcie is funny..

End of story.

Simple as that, thanks

 

[blutto]

Hitchens is obvious and dull as ****. Boomcie is funny..

End of story.

....funny but very true....and then there is the high art of our resident geniuses...Polish, Cobblestoned and ChrisE....we are blessed indeed here on these pages ...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Everyone cool down or you will be ban i hope i can attempt to joke here as its not allowed in the mod thread

 

[oldborn]

Everyone cool down or you will be ban i hope i can attempt to joke here as its not allowed in the mod thread

That is my brother nice easy start. When you and I become mods you are going to be good cop, you know
Bad cop is really my job

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I'm told that Tariq Ali said something along the lines of "Hitchens died in 2001" when asked about his death on Radio 4. That seems like a reasonable enough response to me.

Certainly, I'd remember him more kindly if he had.

 

[The Hitch]

With his distortion logic chip but somehow brilliant, boomcie impressed me as Hitchens never did.
What Hitchens was really; war profiteer, human rights killer and oil industry PR.

Hitchens is obvious and dull as ****. Boomcie is funny..

End of story.

I thought you were against hijacking threads. You even told me that I quote "should have been strangled at birth" because you felt I hijacked one, and got a 1 month ban for it.

Hypocricy is alive.

Simple as that, thanks

....funny but very true....and then there is the high art of our resident geniuses...Polish, Cobblestoned and ChrisE....we are blessed indeed here on these pages ...

Cheers

blutto

I have no idea what any of these posts are doing on this thread. There are plenty of other places to rate users.

I'm told that Tariq Ali said something along the lines of "Hitchens died in 2001" when asked about his death on Radio 4. That seems like a reasonable enough response to me.

Certainly, I'd remember him more kindly if he had.

Why 2001?
Hitchens started supporting the overthrow of Saddam in the 80's and American backed overthrow of Saddam in 1991. He wrote countless articles advocating overthrow throughout the 90's maybe tariq wasn't paying attention. As was pointed out in response to this by one of Christophers closest friends - Ian Mcewan, He had supported the Falklands war in the 80' and advocated intervention in the Balkans long before anyone else.

so Tariq and anyone else are talking absolute crap if they think Hitchens suddenly changed the moment they stopped liking him

 

[oldborn]

Hitch is there anything else than call for arms and hate in "real Hitch" opus.
I mean is there any country which Hitchens did not want to occupy or overthrown?
Wait a minute I can call one, Michael Jackson Neverland!
Dude was communist imperialist, if he did not like it he just wrote a book "Why we should send B2 to bomb Iraq"
IMHO he just had wrong career, he should be Joint Chiefs of Staff boss.
Do you have Hitch tattoo as well

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Why 2001?
Hitchens started supporting the overthrow of Saddam in the 80's and American backed overthrow of Saddam in 1991. He wrote countless articles advocating overthrow throughout the 90's maybe tariq wasn't paying attention. As was pointed out in response to this by one of Christophers closest friends - Ian Mcewan, He had supported the Falklands war in the 80' and advocated intervention in the Balkans long before anyone else.

so Tariq and anyone else are talking absolute crap if they think Hitchens suddenly changed the moment they stopped liking him

Tariq Ali would have known him when he was a prominent leftist. Presumably he wasn't paying too much attention to the details of his evolution into a propagandist for US imperialism and only noticed him again when his warmongering became more prominent.

From savaging Kissinger to cruise missiles for human rights was a sad and sickening journey.

 

[The Hitch]

Tariq Ali would have known him when he was a prominent leftist. Presumably he wasn't paying too much attention to the details of his evolution into a propagandist for US imperialism and only noticed him again when his warmongering became more prominent.

From savaging Kissinger to cruise missiles for human rights was a sad and sickening journey.

No journey. Hitchens was always the same and the views were always the same.

The anti Kissinger books and documentaries came out after 911 too.

He was always against imperialism btw. But since you "only noticed him again" when his views on the Iraq war became more prominent, I wouldn't trust you to know what his views actually were.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Hitch is...

Give it a rest, Oldborn. The man is dead. If you have nothing nice to post at this point in this thread, don't post anything at all. Got it?

 

[redtreviso]

I wouldn't trust you to know what his views actually were.

When someone is a George W Bush/PNAC/New Pearl Harbor fanboi his solvent impaired views on anything else are not worth considering. Might as well listen to the typical noise coming from any one of a million Texas bar stools.

 

[oldborn]

Give it a rest, Oldborn. The man is dead. If you have nothing nice to post at this point in this thread, don't post anything at all. Got it?

Of course I got it, there is something nice about it. I am sorry you late for signing his last book

[/url] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

No journey. Hitchens was always the same and the views were always the same.

The anti Kissinger books and documentaries came out after 911 too.

He was always against imperialism btw. But since you "only noticed him again" when his views on the Iraq war became more prominent, I wouldn't trust you to know what his views actually were.

Congratulations, that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.

Hitchens was a prominent member of the International Socialists, which he could not have been while holding his later warmongering views. According to your own chronology, he went from a standard issue left wing view of Iraq in the 1980s (ie hoping that the Iraqi people would overthrow the regime) to support for US conquest in the 1990s. You may be correct that he evolved into a snivelling propagandist for imperialism at an earlier date than the more charitably inclined tend to assume. That's a matter of little interest to me. Hitchens was a talented writer, but he chose to use those talents toadying to the powerful. A waste of ability.