Christopher Hitchens: A winner, or a ********?

[Undesired Walrus]

Hitchens is arguably one of the greatest intellectuals alive today. Unbelievably well-read, funny and articulate, I would run a mile before debating the man on any issue.

He has contributed much aid to the Atheist 'movement' and provided people such as myself with valid arguments against theism.

That said, I am perplexed at his stand on the Iraq War, which he still stands behind all these years later, being a champion of its.. well, whatever it exactly was supposed to do. Dawkins and Harris, both seeing the Iraq War as a reckless intervention, appear to be as bemused as I am.

On Charlie Rose a while back, he stressed that the Saddam regime offered sanctuary to numerous terrorists involved in the 93 bombings of the WTC. Very well, but the finger is finding a hard time to declare war on the countries surrounding Iraq, in which a very prominent one allowed the influx of Zarqawi and his men into Iraq, destroying its civil society.

Worryingly enough, he also appears to continue to support it on Iraq's position in the gulf, suggesting that the tactical removal of Saddam was an affective move in a hotly contested and bloody chess game. A 'good move' or not, it is becoming a worrying trend to ignore the appalling loss of innocent life in Iraq and the displacement of millions of Iraqis.

I worry intellectuals like Hitchens may succeed in painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense, and I fear this is his folly. On top of all this, I was struck by statements such as : "I hate our enemies, and I want them to be killed". I'm not in favour of loving those who have commited grave crimes, but as someone who claims he was greatly influenced by MLK, I worry about such aggressive rhetoric such as "Our enemies".

[mrbaracuda]

I am perplexed at his stand on the Iraq War, which he still stands behind all these years later, being a champion of its.. well, whatever it exactly was supposed to do.

Binding the enemy on foreign soil!:eusa_think:

[Gurdur]

A self-serving wanker who makes his money by shooting his mouth off.

Nothing he has written, nothing at all, is in any way great literature; in 20 years' time he will be completely forgotten.

[Rufo]

I can't say I've read enough of his work to actually have an opinion of him, but I don't recall hearing anything about him that has been in his favor. He's an anti-theist, a stance I do not share, and appears to have a troubling idea of Islam and how to deal with it (as mentioned), which I do not share either.

Of course we can't just read the works of people we like and agree with, but I'd need some kind of motivator to actually gain interest in his opinions. Songs of praise from those who happen to share his ideals won't suffice.

[Undesired Walrus]

If you watch towards the end of "The Four Horsemen", it is clear from what Hitchens says that he and Dawkins once had an impassioned row over Iraq. A shame that was never on camera.

That said Gurdur, could you elaborate a bit more on your statement? Whilst holding questionable politics, the political science section of my university library is loaded with articles written by Hitchens that are utilised by students in their work. He is clearly seen as a signifigant source of value.

[Gurdur]

.... That said Gurdur, could you elaborate a bit more on your statement?

I could, and will, at very great length, but on another day, but soon. PM me to remind me. This is actually already a planned project of mine. A few short remarks here below.

Whilst holding questionable politics, the political science section of my university library is loaded with articles written by Hitchens that are utilised by students in their work. He is clearly seen as a signifigant source of value.


Really? In just what role? You see, anyone vocal and well-known could be seen as a "significant source of value" to Political Studies students, simply and only because that person reflects some political current or other, that is all.

Do you remember ever learning of the Enoch Powells case? The "rivers of blood" speech? Great significant value to any political studies student there; for that matter, the collected speeches of Mary Whitehouse might also be so seen.

But tell me, what of lasting value is there anywhere in Hitchen's work? Where are the interesting insights? The deep analyses? The novel points of view? The avenues given for further explanation?

None, none at all, in Hitchen's corpus of writings.

He is only famous for being bilious; he represents resentful opinions, given in overblown rhetoric, and since he vocalises resentment, in judgemental tones with speciously clever rhetoric, many love him for expressing their resentment for them.

But lasting value? Deep stuff? Real suggested concrete programs? Ha, ha, ha.

[Soapy Sam]

I confess I had never heard of Hitchens till TAM V.

I can't honestly say I'm greatly impressed.
He's a bright bloke, and entertaining, but as opinionated as any other bright bloke.
Of course, I would be amazed if any two bright blokes over the age of twenty agreed on everything.

[RandFan]

IIRC, Hitchens has moderated his view, ever so slightly of Iraq in recent times. He thinks it has been prosecuted badly, again this is just my memory. I think he makes some great arguments for prosecuting this war. Sadly I think the negative outweigh the positive, a view I've not always held BTW.

In any event, Hitchens is one of the greatest orators and debaters of modern times. He is simply outstanding and I count myself lucky to have heard him in person. It's clear that he commands a good deal of respect and admiration from intellectuals of many ideologies and disciplines.

That said, he's human, imperfect and flawed. He's ripe for criticism in a number of areas.

[RandFan]

BTW, listed #10 in the top 20 articles at Richard Dawkins (http://www.richarddawkins.net/)' site is Hitchens' talk on free speech (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,731,Free-Speech,Christopher-Hitchens) (video). Simply outstanding. A must see.

[Sunni Man]

He is only famous for being bilious; he represents resentful opinions, given in overblown rhetoric, and since he vocalises resentment, in judgemental tones with speciously clever rhetoric, many love him for expressing their resentment for them.

Right on target Gurdur

[Rufo]

BTW, listed #10 in the top 20 articles at Richard Dawkins (http://www.richarddawkins.net/)' site is Hitchens' talk on free speech (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,731,Free-Speech,Christopher-Hitchens) (video). Simply outstanding. A must see.
That speech convinced me of two things:
1. That Hitchens is, all biases aside, without a doubt, absolutely brilliant when it comes to rhetoric.
2. That his opinions are, nevertheless, just about what I thought them to be.

The combination of these is... well, I don't know. I wouldn't exactly "run a mile before debating the man", but I wouldn't want him as my enemy. And the fact that in certain matters we hold diametrically opposing views means that I might have to view him as such to a certain extent.

Brilliant argument for the freedom of speech, though.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't see why people are calling him a brilliant intellectual and debator. From what I've seen all he is is eloquent at being a rude, obnoxious, ass. And he doesn't repect the rules of debate at all.

Sure, it can be appealing when you already agree with him, but otherwise he just comes off poorly.

[Rufo]

I don't see why people are calling him a brilliant intellectual and debator. From what I've seen all he is is eloquent at being a rude, obnoxious, ass. And he doesn't repect the rules of debate at all.

Sure, it can be appealing when you already agree with him, but otherwise he just comes off poorly.
I haven't seen him in debate, but seeing the speech RandFan linked to does impress me to a certain extent. He has a way of twisting small words to his favor. Perhaps the fact that I noticed it a few times means he's not that good, but he's definately not a bad speaker.

[Travis]

I love Hitchens. My friends always say that he talks and debates the way I do, only with a British accent. :D I own a copy of god Is Not Great and have lent it out to many people.

Like Hitchens I was big proponent of invading Iraq, it was something I started calling for back in the late 90's and was glad to see finally happen. I am, however, thoroughly disappointed with how the post invasion occupation was handled. There is nothing wrong with "painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense" since there are at least two atheists, Hitchens and myself, that were big supporters of doing so.

[Sunni Man]

Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.

How anyone could call him brilliant is beyond me.

[Rufo]

Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.

How anyone could call him brilliant is beyond me.
One can be brilliant in one way and a fool in many others. Based on my uninformed, arbitrary judgement, that is exactly what Hitchens is.

[NewtonTrino]

When I saw him at TAM I wasn't too impressed and didn't really know who he was. Since then I've read GING and his new "Atheist Reader" and they are both wonderful. The guy knows how to write well enough that I will read anything he writes. Then again, it doesn't mean that I like everything he says. For instance the Iraq war is pure idiocy. It represents the kind of short term thinking that I've come to hate. However, on religion I am also an anti-theist so I pretty much think he's right on there.

[plumjam]

Well, Hitchens can at times be witty, but he never seems to manage to exercise his wit without being (or at least seeming) an enormously self-satisfied condescending a-hole.

On the Iraq issue I think Hitchens has been caught in a no-win situation.
He started off as a left-wing kind of chap. From what I've read he more or less did a 180 degree switch when he happened to be flying on an airliner on 9/11 (please correct me if I'm wrong). The realisation came home to him on that day that he could have conceivably been flown into some skyscraper. I guess that would have some effect on any human being.
Unfortunately for Hitchens he seems to have reacted in a particularly 180-degree fashion, and has had to progressively ally himself with Neo-Con type idiots. This went on for a not-insignificant period, and it would have been v. difficult for him to backtrack.

He is so enormously wrong on the Iraq issue.
If not convinced please search youtube for his debate with George Galloway on the topic. George completely destroyed him. Partly because the facts are on George's side, but also because George is a much better speaker, and more logical, and sympathetic, than is Hitchens, ... who still, unfortunately, comes across as doing his utmost in all situations in order to come across as "clever".

;)

[RandFan]

FTR, Hitchens didn't get jobs with Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry or publish a number of well received books (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Christopher+Hitchens&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en) by being a hack.

[plumjam]

FTR, Hitchens didn't get jobs with Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry or publish a number of well received books (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Christopher+Hitchens&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en) by being a hack.

sure, but "cleverness" doesn't have a lot, or even very much, to do with the truth.

[Puppycow]

A self-serving wanker who makes his money by shooting his mouth off.

Nothing he has written, nothing at all, is in any way great literature; in 20 years' time he will be completely forgotten.

I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.

I thoroughly enjoyed his recent book, God is not Great, which I read cover to cover.

I guess "great literature" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Wowbagger]

I never cared for Hitchens. He was probably the worst speaker at the TAMs I have been to (though, TAM4 was not as bad as the others).
And, I don't think he even debates very well, at all! He actually made Al Sharpton look good, during their debates.

And I don't think his "god is not Great" book is as sharp with the arguments as Dawkins' "God Delusion", or any of the other such books I've read.

And, on top of that, I tend to disagree with him on stuff more often than most other of the top atheists.

[RandFan]

sure, but "cleverness" doesn't have a lot, or even very much, to do with the truth.I kinda doubt he got his work simply because he was clever but I think your point is a non-starter. It's rather pointless for us to argue whether or not Hitchens employment has anything to do with the truth as it would be to argue the same for any other person. At best you are simply making a personal attack colored by your own bias. Kind of like your asserting by fiat that Galloway completely destroyed Hitchens. It's obvious nonsense, to me, but how do I prove that? I can no more prove it than you can.


Your post, like most of the posts here are only opinions. And remember the truism about opinions, they're like rectums. Everyone's got one and they all stink.

[RandFan]

I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.:) I missed that one.

Dawkins Reviews Hitchens (http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2649121,00.html)

...Grayling emailed me to discuss tactics. After proposing a couple of lines for himself and me, he concluded, “. . . and Hitch will spray AK47 ammo at the enemy in characteristic style”.

Grayling’s engaging caricature misses Hitchens’s ability to temper his pugnacity with old-fashioned courtesy. And “spray” suggests a scattershot fusillade, which underestimates the deadly accuracy of his marksmanship. If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy. A string of reverends and “theologians” ruefully discovered this during Hitchens’s barnstorming book tour around the United States. But then as Dinesh D'souza notes, "Dawkins is only a biologist", what does he know? It's a good question.

[shadron]

I worry intellectuals like Hitchens may succeed in painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense, and I fear this is his folly.

Ummm, I wouldn't worry about any painting Saddam removal in an aesthetic sense; it was plainly about as un-aesthetic as a hanging could be, particularly with all the cursing Iraqis around him. Perhaps you meant tarnishing atheism with the will to war; all one needs to do, I would think, is to point to GW's absurd pandering to faith to demonstrate the falsity of that.

The man has a political viewpoint differing from yours and mine; so be it. No one's perfect. :)

[Undesired Walrus]

"painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense" since there are at least two atheists, Hitchens and myself, that were big supporters of doing so.

:)

Aesthetic, not Atheistic.

[Finnegan]

Christopher Hitchens is an extraordinary polemicist, but there is no doubt that his refusal to make an admission of error has caused a deterioration in his prose. His arguments have oscillated, his reasoning has collapsed into turgid vitriol and even his quips feel blunt. An example of his strange retreat from rational political commentary came in his claim that “the death toll was not nearly high enough", while his coverage of the Elections has only extended to criticising the style of Michelle Obama's prose.

That said, he remains one of the greatest writers and orators in the media. [I]Letters To A Young Contrarian, Unacknowledged Legislation and The Trial Of Henry Kissinger are books that I, personally, value very much, and I hope that he, without sounding as patronising as I know I will, 'recovers'.

If not convinced please search youtube for his debate with George Galloway on the topic. George completely destroyed him.

Mr Galloway was excellent proof that even a five year-old would have known to oppose the war in Iraq.

[Soapy Sam]

The Galloway v Hitchens debate certainly makes interesting viewing. I don't feel either side "destroyed" the other. As I was opposed to the war from before the start , but am convinced George is a crook (albeit a damn entertaining one), I came into it with complex bias. I felt Galloway emerged with more points than Hitchens, but it's hard to keep personal bias out of this sort of judgement.
I must admit, like many Scots, I found the "Mr.Galloway goes to Washington" business one of the funniest moments in politics I ever saw. He's a rogue, but you have to admire his style.

[Undesired Walrus]

Hitchens arguments tend to be made up of Iraq's tendency to harbour Islamists. Why this logic isn't applied to the 15 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, a country dripping in state-funded Wahhabism, is perplexing.

Saddam may have harboured terrorists, but Saudi Arabia promotes terrorism and creates it. More to the point, the latter was not/is not on its last legs and crippled by sanctions. Instead, it gets audiences with the US president.

[albion]

I've always been in two minds about Hitchens. While I've always enjoyed his erudition and his entertaining use of language I find him too much of an idealogue. He seems unable to see nuance in any argument and totally unwilling to admit fault in his public pronouncements. It seems that he has simply exchanged one set of rigid beliefs (SWP Marxism) for his current set.

Possibly his most infuriating trait though is his habit of interrupting debates by mumbling under his breath when his opponent is speaking. He did it against both Galloway and his brother. I was particularly irked by it in the latter because he had a far superior argument than Peter anyway and it was totally unnecessary. It is both rude and disruptive of the debate and is quite frankly the behaviour of a teenager not a highly intelligent adult.

I find him far better suited to being a TV talking head than as either a debater or an intellectual. That said he is something of a guilty pleasure of mine when he goes off on one of his harangues.

[Travis]

:)

Aesthetic, not Atheistic.

Sorry, I was tired, made some spelling errors too.:)

[Lonewulf]

No man is perfect, and I doubt I'll agree with any atheist on all issues (or any person, period).

Nonetheless, some of his opinions do seem to be a bit... out there.

[Gurdur]

Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.


Funnily enough, that's what his brother says about him too.

He's not quite that bad, but sometimes he certainly does try to live up to his reputation.

[Travis]

Mr Galloway was excellent proof that even a five year-old would have known to oppose the war in Iraq.

Was that aimed at me or are you just venting?

[Gurdur]

I'm suprised that a person with such a low opinion of him has taken the time to read every single thing he has written.

I read the Bible and the Koran too. And Le Pen and Thatcher. And Mein Kampf. Surely you are not suggesting that I should not read Hitchens before forming an opinion. Surely you are not suggesting that just because someone reads a work, therefore they agree with that work, either.

I thoroughly enjoyed his recent book, God is not Great, which I read cover to cover.

I guess "great literature" is in the eye of the beholder.

Because you liked it, it's therefore great literature? Taking subjectivism way too far into relativism.

[Gurdur]

Mr Galloway was excellent proof that even a five year-old would have known to oppose the war in Iraq.
Was that aimed at me or are you just venting?


I thought it was aimed at Galloway. A bit unkind, but very funny.

[Finnegan]

Was that aimed at me or are you just venting?

I do apologise, it wasn't aimed at anybody.

I've spent five years arguing with both pro-war commentators and Respect campaigners, so I've become a little too zealous. Just thank God that this is an internet debate. Had we been arguing in the street you'd all be drenched in invective-induced spittle.

Apologies again.

[Gurdur]

But it was a funny putdown of Galloway. Condemnation through extremely faint praise!

[Lonewulf]

Because you liked it, it's therefore great literature? Taking subjectivism way too far into relativism.
How would you define great literature?

[Finnegan]

But it was a funny putdown of Galloway. Condemnation through extremely faint praise!

Heh, thanks.

The more I gape at Galloway's china-cheerleading, Castro-kissing and coming-out-as-a creationist, the more I become convinced that he's a COINTELPRO agent.

[Undesired Walrus]

Speaking of Galloway, RESPECT is an absolutely appalling political party, making a pure mockery of its name. It tries to remodel the left into a seething, irrational and anti-intellectual presentation which more resembles a child born at Woodstock than the civil rights movement.

For those of us on the left trying to put the world into a rational framework, it does us no favours.

[Finnegan]

Speaking of Galloway, RESPECT is an absolutely appalling political party, making a pure mockery of its name. It tries to remodel the left into a seething, irrational and anti-intellectual presentation which more resembles a child born at Woodstock than the civil rights movement.

For those of us on the left trying to put the world into a rational framework, it does us no favours.

The Respect Coalition has (rather ironically) split recently, with Galloway maintaining supporters in "Respect Renewal" and other members forming the Left List. The latter appears to me to have far greater respectability, especially as there's little evidence of Galloway being particularly motivated towards working class issues.

His current bright ideas, incidentally, include the belief that 'the proposals in the Embryo Research Bill before the House imminently blasphemes against the very idea of God'.

[Undesired Walrus]

Much of the problems of the left during the Iraq War have stemmed from media representation of people like Galloway and Brian Haw. Whilst I will defend to the death the latters right to remain outside parliament, he seems to be going senile and exaggerates numbers that need no exaggeration. I yesterday walked opposite his protests and saw he had a banner that declared 2 million had been killed in Iraq. Wherever he got that figure from, I will never know.

[Finnegan]

Much of the problems of the left during the Iraq War have stemmed from media representation of people like Galloway and Brian Haw. Whilst I will defend to the death the latters right to remain outside parliament, he seems to be going senile and exaggerates numbers that need no exaggeration. I yesterday walked opposite his protests and saw he had a banner that declared 2 million had been killed in Iraq. Wherever he got that figure from, I will never know.

Hmm..yes, that would give Nick Cohen four hundred words in The Guardian with an Evening Standard column to spare. Brian Haw, however, is at least passionate, sincere and sympathetic. He's no hypocrite.

[Pardalis]

Winner.

[ravdin]

I'm a fan. Hitchens is an arrogant SOB. But I've rarely known him to be wrong.

[Beerina]

I was struck by statements such as : "I hate our enemies, and I want them to be killed". I'm not in favour of loving those who have commited grave crimes, but as someone who claims he was greatly influenced by MLK, I worry about such aggressive rhetoric such as "Our enemies".

How would you describe people who would kill you for any of a half dozen reasons, feeling no guilt about it?

Treating people like this with apologetic, kid gloves, if not full-blown Blame America First-ism intertwined with it, is the primary thesis of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, regardless of whether it was wise to go into Iraq or not as a practical matter.

[Finnegan]

How would you describe people who would kill you for any of a half dozen reasons, feeling no guilt about it?

Treating people like this with apologetic, kid gloves, if not full-blown Blame America First-ism intertwined with it, is the primary thesis of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, regardless of whether it was wise to go into Iraq or not as a practical matter.

He is also reported (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/shatz/4)as saying (when discussing the merits of cluster bombs):

If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops...then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, 'Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.' No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words.

I still admire Hitchens - for his oratory and his (now occasionally) startling prose - but his sheer zeal seems to suggest that the people he writes about have somehow become dehumanised.

[Undesired Walrus]

How would you describe people who would kill you for any of a half dozen reasons, feeling no guilt about it?

Treating people like this with apologetic, kid gloves, if not full-blown Blame America First-ism intertwined with it, is the primary thesis of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, regardless of whether it was wise to go into Iraq or not as a practical matter.

I just find it not helpful language, that's all. To find legitimacy in hating anyone is quite poisonous, IMO.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Winner.

Absolutely.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I still admire Hitchens - for his oratory and his (now occasionally) startling prose - but his sheer zeal seems to suggest that the people he writes about have somehow become dehumanised.

People who fly jet airplanes into buildings should be dehumanized. Period.

[Undesired Walrus]

People who fly jet airplanes into buildings should be dehumanized. Period.

I'll have to unplug that period for a second, and suggest that anyone who does such an 'inhuman' thing needs to be understood as the human they absolutely are more than any other.

[Finnegan]

People who fly jet airplanes into buildings should be dehumanized. Period.

I'll have to carefully bypass that period to point out that, in conflict, very few terrorists can be discerningly targeted, and with cluster bombs there is practically no discernment at all. Hitchens's statement suggests - among other things - that he views war purely conceptually, and has dehumanised it's willing or unwilling participants.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll have to unplug that period for a second, and suggest that anyone who does such an 'inhuman' thing needs to be understood as the human they absolutely are more than any other.

If you want to understand them before killing them, that's fine. Personally, I don't have that kind of time to waste.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll have to carefully bypass that period to point out that, in conflict, very few terrorists can be discerningly targeted, and with cluster bombs there is practically no discernment at all. Hitchens's statement suggests - among other things - that he views war purely conceptually, and has dehumanised it's willing or unwilling participants.

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops..."

[brodski]

If you want to understand them before killing them, that's fine. Personally, I don't have that kind of time to waste.

I think the impact may kill them before you'll get a chance, if not, the burning jet fuel is my second bet.

[Finnegan]

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops..."

Precisely.

One never is with cluster bombs. When the British (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/30/iraq.richardnortontaylor)
dropped 2000 upon 'enemy positions' in Basra, bomblets fell upon schools (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1233)and homes (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040208/ai_n12751549), while submunitions remain unexploded. The fact that Hitchens did not taken historical (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2912617.stm)and military knowledge into question (at least partially) shows his disconnection from practical conflict.

[Finnegan]

Precisely.

One never is with cluster bombs. When the British (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/30/iraq.richardnortontaylor)
dropped 2000 upon 'enemy positions' in Basra, bomblets fell upon schools (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1233)and homes (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040208/ai_n12751549), while submunitions remain unexploded. The fact that Hitchens did not taken historical (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2912617.stm)and military knowledge into question (at least partially) shows his disconnection from conflict.

It's all very well to say that they need to be killed or they need to be removed, but you need to know how, by whom and with what. Hitchens made a convincing (if occasionally fallacious) case against Hussein and the Taliban, but had little consideration for the practical reality of war.

Whoopsie daisy; I meant to add that onto my post, not begin a debate with myself.

[Undesired Walrus]

If you want to understand them before killing them, that's fine. Personally, I don't have that kind of time to waste.

Is it a waste of time for historians who try to understand the mind of Hitler? Was not his status as a human make the terrible deeds he did even more important to understand in the context of his species?

The talk of the need to kill them is superfluous here. You brought up people who have -by their very act- murdered themselves and countless others by flying planes into buildings. The act of understanding them as what they were, humans, was something you are rebelling against. Why you are taking this anti-intellectual stance is something you have not elaborated upon.

[Lonewulf]

I think what's important with Hitler is not Hitler himself, but the people that followed his message. Without them, Hitler himself would have been pretty relatively harmless.

[GreyICE]

Christopher Hitchens truly illustrates the difference between atheist and skeptic.

He is an interesting man, but he needs to approach his own ideas with more skepticism.

[Number Six]

Hitchens is interesting and funny at times but no way I'd put him at the top of intellectual debaters or whatever. For one thing he has a hard time debating fairly and he talks over his opponent frequently. And he often dominates the conversation and I don't mean in terms of quality but rather he talks and talks and just will not stop.

[Pardalis]

I'm a fan. Hitchens is an arrogant SOB. But I've rarely known him to be wrong.

Even when he's wrong he's good.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I enjoy watching Hitchens debate and his short media appearances. I think his wit is outstanding; his overpowering rhetorical whip, at times, is refreshing.

I’ve also enjoyed his book about Orwell and Thomas Paine. I’ve yet to read God is Not Great, although I suppose the general arguments in that particular book are pretty much the same as what he’s presenting in his debates.

[billydkid]

He is undeniably a very bright guy, but he has his blind spots like most of us. I would have to say, yeah, he's a winner - he has a lot more cash than I will ever have. I might add that being a winner and being a ********** are in no way mutually exclusive.

[billydkid]

People who fly jet airplanes into buildings should be dehumanized. Period.I don' t think most of us have any problem feeling contempt for terrorists and have no idea why you think anyone except small minority do. The problem involves extending that contempt to everyone else in the populations from which they spring. And I also think that deliberately trying not to understand what might motivate people to do things (beyond "They're evil!!!") is just stupid. Certainly, some are just evil. Other's feel justified. Truly evil people are a minority. It might be worth understanding why those who feel justified feel that way. And I'm not saying them feeling justified in anyway justifies their actions - so don't pull that out of your ......well, you know.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think what's important with Hitler is not Hitler himself, but the people that followed his message.

Exactly.

I want to kill those who celebrate 9/11. Then we can try to understand them after they are dead.

[elemental]

Non-theism is not a dogma. Are some of us forgetting that? The mere fact that he does not believe in a god ought not, and does not necessarily dictate his view on this war.

I happen to not agree with him, but why should I? Because we are both godless we both must agree on everything else? Nonsense.

[GreyICE]

Exactly.

I want to kill those who celebrate 9/11. Then we can try to understand them after they are dead. You are simplifying the issue. The issue is not simple, because no issue is simple.

You want to kill those who celibated 9/11. Fine. Well and good. Are we talking about actual terrorists? Or everyone in the Arab world who felt happy? What if they didn't think the terrorists were right then, but think they're right now because of our actions? What if they celibrated because they have absolutely no context for understanding what happened on 9/11, only that they were told that Americans were bad, and something bad happened to the people they were told were bad?

Issues are never simple.

[Pardalis]

I think it was rather simple that day, when these terrorists boarded those planes, and whenever a kamikaze goes to a market.

Either you do it or you don't. They chose the wrong option.

Simple.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You are simplifying the issue. The issue is not simple, because no issue is simple.

You want to kill those who celibated 9/11. Fine. Well and good. Are we talking about actual terrorists? Or everyone in the Arab world who felt happy? What if they didn't think the terrorists were right then, but think they're right now because of our actions? What if they celibrated because they have absolutely no context for understanding what happened on 9/11, only that they were told that Americans were bad, and something bad happened to the people they were told were bad?

Issues are never simple.

To the contrary - most issues are incredibly simple. It's just that most people don't have the back bone to solve them.

[Lonewulf]

Non-theism is not a dogma. Are some of us forgetting that? The mere fact that he does not believe in a god ought not, and does not necessarily dictate his view on this war.

I happen to not agree with him, but why should I? Because we are both godless we both must agree on everything else? Nonsense.I think it's less of "non-theism = dogma", but more of, "Good author that I respected and read the works of, has an opinion I really cannot respect".

It happens all the time. Some people have a favorite author, and then find out their author, say, hates homosexuals or is racist or promotes something that we don't. I've found this happening to me myself.

So no, no one's advocating some kind of "non-theistic dogma". It's just people losing respect for someone that they had a lot of for.

[a_unique_person]

Binding the enemy on foreign soil!:eusa_think:

Hmmm, quagmire. You could be right.

[EGarrett]

Hitchens is arguably one of the greatest intellectuals alive today. Unbelievably well-read, funny and articulate, I would run a mile before debating the man on any issue.

He has contributed much aid to the Atheist 'movement' and provided people such as myself with valid arguments against theism.

That said, I am perplexed at his stand on the Iraq War, which he still stands behind all these years later, being a champion of its.. well, whatever it exactly was supposed to do. Dawkins and Harris, both seeing the Iraq War as a reckless intervention, appear to be as bemused as I am.Interestingly enough, I'm basically the exact opposite on the issues you bring up.

I agree with Hitchens on the Iraq War, but I don't feel he is articulate, and I wouldn't hesitate to debate him on any issue where I disagreed strongly. Anyone who knows what they're doing in that setting, probably even a half-decent lawyer or a very good high school debate team member...would mop the floor with him.

I think it might be better to start a new topic on the issue of "articulation" rather than pull this one away from the Iraq War.

[MattusMaximus]

Most stuff written by Hitchens is a great read, whether you agree with him or not (and I disagree with him on some things). His wit is both razor sharp and delicious. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of it.

[Lonewulf]

"Wit" can be "delicious"? What kind of flavor does it have? Chocolate? Hazelnut?

Maybe it doesn't stop there. Does "Intelligence" have a the aroma of spring flowers? Or does willpower have a texture like soft leather?

Anyways, yes, I agree. Hitchens' wit definitely appeals to my tastebuds.

[Mycroft]

Is it a waste of time for historians who try to understand the mind of Hitler?

That depends.

If you're trying to understand him to delay or find an alternative to opposing him, then yes, it's a waste of time.

If you're trying to understand him in the context of history after already having defeated him, then no, it's a great way to spend your time.

Why you are taking this anti-intellectual stance is something you have not elaborated upon.

Because all too often "understanding" is taken to be synonymous with "identifying with" and it evokes images of uber-lefty intellectuals such as Ward Churchill writing essays blaming the victims who were murdered.