Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
TheTickingTime-Bomb

God is not great

Recommended Posts

one of my mates is reading it just now.he says its a brilliant read.i'll have to see about getting it after hes finished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
christopher hitchens is an ignorant gimp, who supported the Iraq war and supports george bush.

I knew I was eventually going to end up argueing with you stripey...

And because your post wasn't exactly enlightening, I am forced to dispell your own high strung ignorance on the subject of Hitchens.

Try researching.

He only supports George Bush's campaign in the middle east, as do I, but not the man himself.

I think the reason more people aren't behind the Iraq war is because of the constant shifting and flip-flopping over the reasons for going. And perhaps for not finishing the job in Afghanistan first.

If the Govenment had just said - "We are going to get rid of some evil guy we funded to do our dirty work back in the day, and liberate some people and grab some oil while we are there" then I would still have been against it, but grateful for the truth.

Though I disagree with Hitchens over the Iraq war - he has perhaps the most compelling case for it.

I remember him saying that anyone whose anti-Iraq tirade starts with :

"OK Saddam was a bad guy, but..."

clearly does not know enough about the subject to have an arguement.

Anyway Stripey - If you could tell me why you didn't like the book exactly instead of posting short, ignorant and misleading posts that detract from, and indeed change, the subject at hand then I would be very grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who supports the bush administrations middle east policy is morally bankrupt, hitchens is no exception and his argument that it was worth it to get rid of saddam hussein is completely invalid. I do not care to read a book written by the guy.

As Hitchens retreated, someone remarked to him, "So your glorious war has turned out to be a total disaster, hasn't it?"

"It is glorious," the sodden scrivener blared, "and it IS my war because it needed Paul Wolfowitz and myself to go and convince the President to go to war."

As mourners digested this megalomanic outburst, Hitchens continued, "And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who supports the bush administrations middle east policy is morally bankrupt, hitchens is no exception and his argument that it was worth it to get rid of saddam hussein is completely invalid. I do not care to read a book written by the guy.

Classic.

His comments on religion and comprehensive grasp of political history are absolutely breath-taking, but you with your short unconsequential, unexplained, holier than thou comments are definately more worth my time.

Thank you stripey for highlighting the good old black and white "throwing the baby out with the crib" morality.

Would you throw away Einsteins theorems (the baby) because he believed in something that you disagreed with (the crib)?

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

The book isn't a speculative account of Iraq, but a factual study of Religion.

Read it - you might learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As mourners digested this megalomanic outburst, Hitchens continued, "And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them.""

You don't agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew I was eventually going to end up argueing with you stripey...

And because your post wasn't exactly enlightening, I am forced to dispell your own high strung ignorance on the subject of Hitchens.

Try researching.

He only supports George Bush's campaign in the middle east, as do I, but not the man himself.

I think the reason more people aren't behind the Iraq war is because of the constant shifting and flip-flopping over the reasons for going. And perhaps for not finishing the job in Afghanistan first.

If the Govenment had just said - "We are going to get rid of some evil guy we funded to do our dirty work back in the day, and liberate some people and grab some oil while we are there" then I would still have been against it, but grateful for the truth.

Though I disagree with Hitchens over the Iraq war - he has perhaps the most compelling case for it.

I remember him saying that anyone whose anti-Iraq tirade starts with :

"OK Saddam was a bad guy, but..."

clearly does not know enough about the subject to have an arguement.

Getting rid of him really hasn't made Iraq the next UAE or Qatar which is a shame because it is a country that has the potential.

Saddam was a bad guy:laughing:, no WMD's, The US can't properly fund the restructure of Iraq and Afghanistan... really, the list is very long.

Now, the "I remember hims saying that anyone whose anti-Iraq tirade starts with" comment. Yeah, em, I can see what he is doing there, very witty:popcorn:

A bit like... "remember 9/11". Why 9/11? Why does an event require a special name like that? Remember "23/2", what happened then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As mourners digested this megalomanic outburst, Hitchens continued, "And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them.""

You don't agree?

Similar rhetoric came from George Bush "You're either with us or your with the terrorists". Free speech and free thinking at its best.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As mourners digested this megalomanic outburst, Hitchens continued, "And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them.""

You don't agree?

Of course I don't agree, he is advocating genocide there, which demonstrates his immense hypocrisy in how he justifies the iraq war, and also the stupidity of the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how would you deal with Afghanistan?

What's that got to do with hitchens advocating genocide against the baath party in Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's that got to do with hitchens advocating genocide against the baath party in Iraq?

Oh I see - you would like to address this thread one point at a time, and presumably chronologically.

Right Ok - here we go.

First - You entered and immediately changed the subject from the book about Religion to War and gave no reply or acknowledgement to the fact that Hitchens supports only one aspect of Bush's administration and not the man himself.

Second - You gave no reply or acknowledgement to the fact that you were "throwing out the baby with the crib" in your pre-emptive criticism of a non speculative, factual and historical book you haven't even read.

Third - The ties with Afghanistan and Iraq are beyond doubt now. Unfortunately I was one of those guys whose main stand on the war originally was that of Iraq being unconnected to Afghanistan but my arguement was since crushed.

Surely you were of the position that Afghanistan needed to be consolidated as a country first before entering Iraq?

I was asking what you would do. Which is the thing you seem reluctant to shine any light on despite tirelessly criticising others.

You seem to be against genocide, but have a problem with us taking out a Genocidal War Criminal.

So if you would care to mull over these points and then grace them with your customarily brief and selectively muddled replies.

Actually - you can have the last word - I'm returning to talking about the book from here-on. Come back when you have read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I see - you would like to address this thread one point at a time, and presumably chronologically.

Right Ok - here we go.

First - You entered and immediately changed the subject from the book about Religion to War and gave no reply or acknowledgement to the fact that Hitchens supports only one aspect of Bush's administration and not the man himself.

Second - You gave no reply or acknowledgement to the fact that you were "throwing out the baby with the crib" in your pre-empive critisism of a non speculative, factual and historical book you haven't even read.

Third - The ties with Afghanistan and Iraq are beyond doubt now. Unfortunately I was one of those guys whose main stand on the war originally was that of Iraq being unconnected to Afghanistan but my arguement was since crushed.

Surely you were of the position that Afghanistan needed to be consolidated as a country first before entering Iraq?

I was asking what you would do. Which is the thing you seem reluctant to shine any light on despite tirelessly criticising others.

You seem to be against genocide, but have a problem with us taking out a Genocidal War Criminal.

So if you would care to mull over these points and then grace them with your customarily brief and selectively muddled replies.

Actually - you can have the last word - I'm returning to talking about the book from here-on. Come back when you have read it.

Wow, your blatent ignorance is stunning, no wonder you're a fan of hitchens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it hard to believe that war does not get taken into account in a book about the pros and cons of religion ?(

The book deals more in a critical analysis of the religious texts and is concerned with the truth and authenticity of the texts rather than the outcomes of their widespread teachings and existence.

He does believe that religion inclines people towards violence and blind submission to authority, but that war is inate and would exist without religion even if it were possible to elimate religion, which he thinks is impossible.

Pros and cons come a distinct second to truth or falsehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely only people who have read the book should be commenting in this thread?

Hitchens delivers a strong argument for his case in this book, and if you reject it on the basis that you don't agree with the guy on another matter then you can hardly be considered an objective person...

Originally I too disagreed with hitchens on the iraq war, but his case is certainly compelling and it would be wrong to ignore the points he makes. Though I can't say I support his view today, I will say that his logic has persuaded me on some aspects of it.

I would say you suffer from a case of selective reading, Stripey, and I would urge you to read and view Hitchen's ENTIRE view on issues (not just iraq). Judging by your previous posts you seem a reasonable person and it would be a shame to see you misguided by an initial dislike of the man's approach and therefore blind yourself the arguments of such a rational thinker.

Look the man up on youtube, he has a persuasive argument to make on any subject - regardless of whether you agree with it.

Better to defeat an argument than ignore it.

Thank you, Time-bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pax,

I can see what you're saying. Indeed, he provides a lucid and thought provoking arguement.

However, I have listened to several clips on Youtube and IMHO he doesn't cut it.

There are basic core elements regarding why the US and UK are in Iraq. (Im not trying to be patronising, just giving my opinion).

1) Smoking gun (still waiting).

2) Iraq is a hotbed for terrorism (Hitchens gleaned over the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi). In reality, the US and UK simply cannot afford to strain relationships with Saudi. One word "Oil". The latest state visit from Saudi really showed how weak the UK really is.

3) No word from Glitchen regarding the present state of Iraq.

4) Stretched resources. Quite simply, regarding the current economic climate, where will the western "superpowers" muster more funds to complete the restructure of Iraq and Afghanistan?

To be honest, I really don't understand how a logical human being can support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan? Yes.

As I previously explained, and shall do so again. Iraq should be a very wealthy country. It should be the new UAE/ Qatar. It's truly a disgrace that the growth of such potential has been terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely only people who have read the book should be commenting in this thread?

Hitchens delivers a strong argument for his case in this book, and if you reject it on the basis that you don't agree with the guy on another matter then you can hardly be considered an objective person...

Nonsense, the moral standpoint of this slimebag on illegal foreign intervention and mass murder says it all.

Originally I too disagreed with hitchens on the iraq war' date=' but his case is certainly compelling and it would be wrong to ignore the points he makes. Though I can't say I support his view today, I will say that his logic has persuaded me on some aspects of it. [/quote']

Wait a minute. First you thought he was wrong, then you thought he was right, now you think he was wrong again? Hilarious.

Having a "compelling argument" is not the same as being right. Nick Griffin has a compelling argument in the eyes of his supporters, a car salesman has a compelling argument - it is naive people who are susceptible to these compelling arguments. This is why you sound like you've just picked up a couple of middlebrow airport-bookshelf pseudo-philosophical tracts and suddenly think you're enlightened.

Infact, you're not really in any position to determine wether hitchens is right or not, since you clearly have a very poor grasp of the political reality in the middle east yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"And we are going to kill every Al Qaida terrist and Baathist in the country and that's a good thing. They need to be killed and we will kill them.""

You don't agree?

That is tantamount to agreeing with genocide, its a pretty simplistic view 'bad people need killed', which is quite detached from rational human thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×