UPDATE In response to the outraged, my position is simple. The Iraq War killed hundreds of thousands and maimed millions. Dead or wounded included over a million children. Those who planned the Iraq war, including those who used media positions to propagandise for it, have lost entitlement to the signs of society’s respect.
The world will undoubtedly be a duller place without Christopher Hitchens. Oh, and a better one too.
British journalism is full of people of the same generationwho have lurched from the Trotskyist far left to a crazed neo-con agenda with no intervening period of sanity. I suspect the available riches for zionist propagandists are a major factor. Hitchens, Aaronovitch, Phillips, Cohen. You can probably think of others. A strange and extremely unpleasant manifestation of intellectual prostitution.
@Stephen; “This really is a ridiculous argument – one can oppose something in many ways”
I’m using the term “Islamophobia” is usual understanding of its meaning, ie prejudice against Moslems. If you cannot see that a militant Atheist is by definition, going to have a bias against Moslems (& all other people of faith), then it is you that is being “ridiculous”.
It’s no accident that given Hitchens, who was living in the US, where Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism is rift, chose to call his book, not “Our Father who does not art in Heaven” or some other Christian oriented titled, but instead chose “God is not Great”, as a deliberate provocative insult to Moslems, the original, and real target of his hatred. But as I said before, if you’re really putting forward the argument that Hitchens was not an Islamophobe, I think you will find not many people agreeing with you.
debateable
A superb article in FPJ,” Needed: An Arab Spring for America”
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/16/needed-an-arab-spring-for-america/
Actually we need one here as well!
Stephen,That is exactly what I am saying! for two reasons
1) because there is an absolute double standard when the west have normal ties with all the other countries whose governments are as bad as Iran (and some are worse, among them Uzbekistan)
2) sanctions if hurt, it only hurt ordinary people, Iran or other countries can always buy their arms from elsewhere (in case of Iran, they actually produce lot of it themselves now, thanks to sanction ).
Macky
Even if you wish to take the fear element out of Islamophobia, which is a somewhat unusual approach, I still think it will be difficult to say Hitchens had a prejudice against Moslems – he did not pre judge any religion he considered the arguments and then arrived at his opinion. I’m afraid you are ending up labelling anyone who disagrees with Islam for whatever reason as an Islamophobe.
And “God is not Great” is not a provocative insult – it was Hitchen’s view based on what he thought and understood. Might I kindly suggest that if you find people expressing views different to your own, which they are more than happy to support, to be insulting and provocative then you avoid the blogosphere. If you actually read Hitchen’s book you would actually find that Islam is far from being his only target – and that his case against religion is based on countering the arguments used by religion rather than hatred. And I say that as an agnostic who was not entirely convinced by what the Hitch said. The Hitch was clearly against Islam but not in the way you think.
Azra
The manufacturers of arms and torture equipment will I’m sure support you. And I presume you would apply the same logic to Uzbekistan and Israel? How do you feel about regimes calling in assistance from their friends – is that ok as well? Is their any point in having a UN Charter of Human Rights? Was Britain right to go to war over Poland, were all the International Brigades wrong in going to Spain to defend it from Fascism?
And what happens if some groups in Iran, or elsewhere for that matter, ask for assitance – what should the response be? You didn’t answer the question – I asked previously about whether Turkey should stop the smuggling of arms to the Syrian resistance?
Crab
Thanks for your advice. My post in it’s most tidied up version (and now with no link to the Cameron speech, which all of us must now know about) is below. I’ve not amended it to take into account the many other posts during today. Readers should note that it was originally sent at about 11.00am today, Sunday 17 Dec.
“Suhayl:
.
“Politics is not religion…” (above, 16 Dec 11.45pm ). I agree; and Hitchens deserves credit for some well-aimed polemical strikes against “religious absolutism” (you at 9.33 this morning ). I also entirely agree with your reminder of Paul Robeson’s heroic status, flaws and all: have you seen Tayo Aluko’s “Call Mr Robeson”, his fine one-man dramatisation of Robeson’s battle with the FBI?
Meanwhile, it awoke Hitchens-like ire in me when Radio 4 woke me today to the item on Cameron’s “bold Christian gamble” – his Back to Christianity speech in Oxford on 16 December- together with the comment that this was the speech Tony Blair longed to give but was never allowed to because of Campbell’s fatwa: “We don’t do God.” Sad that we are unable now to look forward to Hitchens’ comments on the Oxford speech.
Are there no depths Cameron’s shallowness will not plumb? Using Christianity and the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible ( see the Guardian and BBC accounts) to stake his claims to the debatable lands of public morality is, I suppose, a logical land-grab to follow wrapping his pyrrhic European victory – and the current Afghan War – in the Union Jack. One reason politicians do this – as evidence to the Leveson Inquiry confirms – is to get favourable media coverage. There is, however, a striking contrast between Blair’s hot Catholicism bubbling fervently under the surface of his premiership and Cameron’s Laodicean Anglicism (Revelation 3:14-22), pitching for his version of “regular guy” status by describing himself as a “committed but vaguely practising Church of England Christian”.
.
Now to relations between politicians and the press and the pusillanimity of the fourth estate. Most celebrity and political sex scoops are published with the public interest justification of revealing as hypocrites those who would be role models or moralistic legislators. Cameron’s latest crusade deserves mockery far more than did Mellors’ and Fergie’s toe-suckings*. Using his Christianity to sheath his party and government in prophylactic virtue while shafting the poor and brown-nosing the rich should mean that Cameron finds commentators and radio/TV interviewers reminding him of some of the central themes of the Abrahamic and other faiths. They could start with these ones:
.
“ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. (Matthew xix: 21)
.
“Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.” (Deuteronomy 1v: 26)
.
“Give just measures, and cause no loss (to others by fraud). And weigh with scales true and upright. And withhold not things justly due to men, and do no evil in the land, working mischief.” ( Sura 26 Ash-Shuara [The Poets]:181-3)
.
I’d prefer my Prime Minister to don the rags of a penitent before aspiring to the exegetic role of a scriptural preacher, whether garbed as bishop, minister, rabbi, imam or Buddhist monk. That said, in reality I would probably not enjoy being governed by a cabinet of millionaires who had given up their wealth to reduce the National Debt (rather than to media-friendly cancer and ex-servicemen charities) and agreed to live on the national average wage. I’d be stifled by sanctimonious smoke. However, it’s a fate I’d willingly submit to for the public interest in the experiment of being governed by pure prigs, rather than by Cameroonian moneyed hypocrites and prigs.
.
*After all:
Babies and lovers’ toes express
ecstasies of wantonness;
that’s a language which we lose
with the trick of wearing shoes.
Alex Comfort (1920-2000), in his collection “Haste to the Wedding”, 1961.”
This board must be the target of one of those Isrealy army posts; the recruits keep a presence spamming for a shift then hand over to the next shift. As they change over so the
debatespam trend changes too.,
Earlier, ziokeyboard guard must have overdosed on horlicks, and was advocating war with Iran, later stephen abouters came up with Iran and Syria are the worst ever HR abusers ever. Now this latest one just cutting and pasting irrelevant bollocks, and still going on about HR, regardless of what has past.
,
The night shift pay must not be all that good.
“And ‘God is not Great’ is not a provocative insult – it was Hitchen’s view based on what he thought and understood.”
.
You are denying a clear fact here. You are saying that he was “just saying” – but he was composing as a skilled writer, he knew how different peoples would recieve his wording. He knew this choice of wording would resonate mostly with speakers of the phrase “God IS great” -a famously revered phrase of the muslim word.
Christians have no habit of saying “god is great” they say “god is love”, sometimes.
Ian Orr – a very fine post, im glad you persevere!
@Stephen— I repeat that I used the term in the commonly accepted meaning of it’s usage, that of a prejudice against Muslims; yes the literal term translate as a fear of Islam, which when you think about it, it ultimately the same thing in the sense that if you fear something, you automatically have a negative feeling towards it also, ie a bias against it.
However with Hitchens, it was not a case of just “disagrees with Islam”, but a venomously hateful decade long series of vulgar & ugly anti-Muslim rants, coupled with a demonic blood-lust which with he advocated the mass murder of Muslims in Iraq & Afghanistan, often justifying this on the pretext that any Muslim who resisted foreign invasion & occupation was a “Jihadist”, and making it plain that he care not a jot for (Muslim) civilian “collateral damage”.
Post 9/11, once his core-values & principles had undergone a complete 180 degree turn to the Right, Hitchens was a mess of shifting & contradicting views as he continually tried to justify his new principles/prejudices, as Norman Finkelstein has carefully documented here;
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=6
I just Googled “Hitchens Zionism” to see what came up. This You Tube clip seems like a clear expression of his thoughts on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxhyy9Wpb4
Hitchens had an amusing response to Finkelstein as well.
.
http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000558.php
Hitchens was an alcoholic.These types blow with the wind of their chosen poison,winding up those foolish enough not to see past their impish game.Integrity or consistency is not their game,just attention seeking and sales figures.
Fedup Stephen has already been outed as a troll by Craig some time back. A solicitor somewhere away from the mainstream. I think it was Redditch. Their purpose is to divert and squelch.
Fedup
“Earlier, ziokeyboard guard must have overdosed on horlicks, and was advocating war with Iran, later stephen abouters came up with Iran and Syria are the worst ever HR abusers ever.”
And where exactly did I make such statements – halucinating again old boy I’m afraid.
Mary
“A solicitor somewhere away from the mainstream. I think it was Redditch.”
Evidence has never been your strong point has it – just a word from your masters is sufficient truth.
Macky
Could I suggest that you actually read Hitchens – if nothing else it will show you how the English language should be used. Of course this ability to interpret what you want into the English language goes a long way to explaining why fatwas are issued against great writers such as Salman Rushdie. On a considerably lower level it also explains why the likes of Fedup and Mary can just make up things about me and what I’ve said that I’m sure they believe to be true.
Stephen. You suggested I read some history so I justified my remarks by giving you links to the proof that Blair was, in his own way, as nasty as Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. I invited you to give a logical counter-argument using historical proof. You could not do so. Not everybody in Soviet Russia knew what Stalin and Beria were up to, as we did not know what Blair was up to. People die under suspicious circumstances in this country (and the US) too, Dr. David Kelly, Bob Cryer and Robin Cook, for example. You just throw in a few of your weasel-words and try to convince people what you say amounts to logic. Did you look at the Children of Iraq pictures? No. Have you read any accounts of toture in western gulags? No. What did you understand of what Clare Short of “diktats” when she resigned? Nothing. The “piss and wind” addendum was meant to prompt you to give your account of history that proves the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering Tony Blair is any different from other ogres of oppression. You could not do it. When you could not do it I simply pointed out, as everyone commenting on this blog can see, that you are all “piss and wind”. There’s nothing infantile in that. What is infantile is somebody with no sense or knowledge of history inviting somebody who has studied history to read history. That’s infantile. Take it on board.
John Goss: You suggested I read some history so I justified my remarks by giving you links to the proof that Blair was, in his own way, as nasty as Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler.
.
Yes, I remember well when Brother Number One, aka Tony Blair, forced the entire population of Britain into agricultural slavery except for all the intellectuals and/or those wearing glasses who were tortured and murdered in killing fields. I remember also the man-made famine that killed off 5 million people as a punishment for disobeying his orders on collectivization not to mention his systematic mass extermination of scapegoated ethnic minorities.
.
But the supreme crime, that you brought back to us, is his snubbing of poor Claire Short, who he was so beastly and horrible to. Only in a Totalitarian State could she have no recourse to this treatment than various media outlets such as the Guardian, the state broadcaster and a free press. You have more than proved your point, Mr Goss.
.
*eyeroll*
It is not that he propagandized the Iraq war, it is that as a “contrarian” who might be expected to recognize the manifest lies of the governments of both the UK and the US, Hitchens chose not to. He was intelligent enough to see what many others did – that the intelligence was being invented to suit the politics – but he preferred for whatever reasons to ignore it. In that sense his position on Iraq was dishonest and hypocritical. He could have said “I do not believe the intelligence; I do not believe that Saddam is a threat to the US or the UK, but I believe that we should remove the tyrant.” At least it would have been honest. After all he was not a politician seeking to persuade the electorate to go along with an already made decision. He was a commentator with some obligation to inform. Instead he said, “It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true.”From that point on, no-one should have believed another word he said. Either he was stupid or malicious. I group him with Blair in the latter category. As I read on another blog, the three letters on his tombstone should not be RIP but WMD.
Thank you Angrysoba – I suspect dissident Goss is choking on his meagre toast and marmalade rations in whichever wifi gulag zone to which he was despatched.
Stephen, look at the list of items that Iran or other countries under sanction cannot receive. torture equipment or military hardware are only 2 of hundreds of other items (medicine, agricultural equipment,,,etc..etc..and as I am sure you know Torture and military hardware are in great quantities sold to Uzbekistan and Israel,Saudi, Bahrain, therefore the focus should be not to supply any of these countries with it if we are really sincere in our quest for democracy and justice, but we are not are we?)…. and for the sake of arguments, if you really want to impose sanction then pick few things including the two you mentioned, stopping the banks trading with Iran, so do you think that will stop Iran buying it from elsewhere? just a silly , headline grabbing gesture by our desperate government in UK
Groups asking for assistance, You mean like of Ahmad Chalabi groups who asked the west to invade Iraq? NO THANK YOU. Majority of people in Iran or Syria do not want that assistance, how do we know that this resistance group represent the people? what form of assistance you are talking about? Should Turkey stop smuggling arm into Syria? I do not know answer to that, but I do not trust anything in the western media any more, I have come to realize they are just as much the organ of governments as they are in the East, the only difference is that in the East we know that, in the west there is a presence that the press are free and unbiased. Syrian so far have asked the west to stay out (have learned their lesson from Libya I guess) but has anyone asked for arms? and what do you think would happen if arms are supplied through Turkey or anywhere else? there will be actions and reactions, look at the number of unarmed civilians already killed, what do you think if they armed? that the army/police will just go away? there will be more severe reactions and more and more killings so in principle I am against supplying arms.
above anything else what I am trying to get across is sanctions, exclusion do not lead to reform or change in a government, if anything it will strengthen them.
And the 2nd point I am trying to get across, is that the west do not do anything out of goodness of their heart, and that the double standard is astounding one rule for their friends/servants, no matter how vile those friends are and one rule for everyone else!
“It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true.” — Traced quoting Hitchens
.
Ahh, I see. Now I, who have neither read nor heard very much from the man, finally understand how clever he was and why he was considered such a great writer. I was marching in the streets in protest, and he was saying the above. It all makes perfect sense!
Going back to Craig’s original post, what’s clear is that he and Hitch share deep polemical instincts. Both are combative – powerful but fat boxers who prefer to win by KOs rather than puffing at the end of 12 rounds and waiting for the ringside judges to tot up the points on each side. As for their views on different topics and people, it’s not so much taking each on their merits – I like to find polemicists championing my causes. Did my dog in the fight take a chunk out of the other or did s/he bite on air (or – if back to heavyweights – was it a good punch or a bit below the belt)?
.
As effective polemical writers they articulate clearly arguments that anyone on the other side needs to take into account. They are often delivered with venom since good lovers make good haters. But as good writers they also have bursts of – for those on the other side – dismayingly impeccable logic – like sound positional chess moves to develop their pieces or gain an important tempo.
.
Another point both share, as far as I know, is that – pace Craig – they do not change their point of view depending on who is paying them. (“Intellectual prostitute” is anyway a misdirected insult: a prostitute may accept that those who pay call the tune, but s/he does not admire the customer or the pimp.) There is another rather obvious point that, sadly, many more editors have been prepared to pay for Hitch’s views than for Craig’s. That’s not a reflection of the quality of the writing, just that editors in “free market” democracies are depressingly scared of/off encouraging genuine debate.
.
I wonder where both would be – one from beyond the grave – on Cameron’s Christian Britain speech? My initial instinct is to remind Cameron [ as I did Jack Straw and others participating in a skewed hustings debate in Blackburn Cathedral – Craig as an Independent, UKIP, BNP and Greens were all excluded – during the by-election campaign in May 2005] of the good man Jesus’s instruction to “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.” (Matthew xxii: 21). In this context, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the appropriate authority of the established church in England and Wales – so Cameron should listen to him and the leaders of non-established denominations about Christian Britain … rather that take cheap pot-shots at him. But that would be to invest spiritual leaders with an authority which they don’t and should not have in 21st century Britain.
.
What we do not need is Cameron bleating that “the hungry sheep look up and are not fed” and attempting to play the spiritual warrior himself – niche politics on a megalomaniac scale, worthy of a son of Blair. [Shades of another Conservative politician play-acting with “the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play”.] No need to get into a multicultural morass of head-counting those in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples .. or Tesco’s. If Cameron wants to be the champion of Christian Britain can he please start off with humility and contrition? A good traditional expression of this would be for him to sit in a Westminster village stocks in Parliament square and invite the public to pelt him with rotten eggs Lion-marked: “Iraq Vote”, “Libyan Lies”, “Parliamentary expenses”. Ideally there would be companion stocks on either side of vaguely Christian David – one for Rupert and one for Fred.
“where exactly did I make such statements”
,
Do you expect me to read through the oodles of cut and paste to “prove” what? I am afraid, I may have misled you, and I apologise for that! You have an impression of me as someone who gives a fuck about what a ziofuckwit thinks.
I see the multi dimensional Stephen is at again this morning. No rest.
Iain Orr, absolutely, excellent post. I am reminded of John Major’s idiotic ‘Back to Basics’ campaign, which backfired spectacularly on that particular govt. Funny that no-one in the media seems to have brought that up – not even on the Dimblebey programme, ‘Any Questions’, even though Michael Portillo, a key memeber of that very govt, was on the panel! Also, many socially-aware ministers of religion have criticised the monetarist ecnonomic policies promulgated by all of these post-1979 govts in the UK, and much else, and routinely are told to ‘keep out’. And now, Cameron has the gall to lecture them! Pathetic. We really ought not to hang of every word uttered by this waxen ‘used bank’ salesman.
If I may venture to suggest and at the risk of sounding patronising, it might be most useful to engage with one another’s arguments, rather than resort to the all-too-easy accusation of “Troll!” just because someone persistently disagrees with one’s views on something. There was a time, before the dawn of moderation on this site, when there were genuine invasions of posters intent on disrupting the mechanics of the site/ Craig and/or of various of the other posters and in those circumstances it sometimes became necessary to probe and expose the sources of such activities. Now that practical, systemic threat has receded considerably. A plea, therefore: Let’s just get on with discussing the issues, eh? Thanks.
mary,
Stephens are everywhere. Just look out of your window. It is odd why anyone tries to enter into a serious discussion with the two hasbara trolls, Stephen and angrysoba. For a moment I thought they are just one person but after reading through several contributions it is obvious that the former is somewhat sillier than the latter. Hence, we may deal with two individuals, unless the smarter one pretends to be Simplicius . Perhaps Stephen is the wife of angrysoba or, not to offend our lady contributors, it may also be the other way around. If so, then I have just uncovered a dangerous nest of trolls. Dear Craig, are there any prizes to be won for such a great achievement on Sunday morning?
@Stephen — Quite amusing that you urge me to read Hitchens ! I have read quite a lot of his writing, mostly before he had that 9/11 knock on the head, and I agree with Galloway that back then “he wrote like an Angel”; in fact, having a personal connection with Cyprus & the events of 1974, I still consider his book on the subject as the best I’ve read on the subject. Post 9/11 however, although he did occasionally manage to reach a semblance of his former brilliant writing skill, it was a steady decline, and it seemed that the further to the Right he lurched, the more his writing skills deteriorated. You only have to compare quality of the writing in the Finkelstein article that I linked to, with the Hitchens attempted rebuttal that Angrysoba provided, to see that very clearly illustrated.
(Incidentally, although I have not read his book against Religion, I do know that logically his choice of the title “God is not Great” cannot be “Hitchen’s view based on what he thought and understood”, as you assert, because his professed point was that God does not exists at all ! Perhaps you should take your own advise & actually read what he wrote ! So I repeat that his choice of title was a calculated insult aim at Muslims, and a direct manifestation of his obsessive Islamophobia).
Suhayl at 18 Dec – 12:11 pm:
.
Agree, absolutely.