NOTE OF WARNING:
Only for adults!
I love this guy he is GREAAAAAAAAT.
Here he is squashing traitor and fifth columnist CAIR representative Ibrahim Hooper on the Quran flushing incident:
Which reminds me of a question:
What do people think on his stance on terrorism? He says that terrorists must be destroyed because they're too aggressive of a people to co-exist with us.
Now usually, I think the word 'terrorist' is overused in the US, but I would think Hitchens remains lucid in his use of it, and I personally agree with him.
Suppose you come over a guy raping a child.
Should you engage in dialogue and debate with him?
People intent on violating others' human rights have thereby suspended several of their own, i.e, we are not in any moral obligation to respect his "rights". They have by their own actions destroyed those rights (to some extent)
No. guy gets boot to head for an opening argument.
The reason I ask is because he supports a war in Iraq for non-religious reasons, but it's still kind of hard for me (in all my ignorance) to separate innocent people from terrorists in a whole country.
It's possible that I may have misunderstood his dialogue, too.
Well, sympathizers with terrorists should stop sympathizing with them, or face the consequences one chooses to impose upon them.
Sympathizers of terrorists are NOT "innocents", they are the breeding ground of terrorists.
Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose in May -07
He discusses Iraq in the beginning.
Please tells us what it means to be a terrorist. Does it mean intentionally targeting civilians? Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo and nuking Japan twice are these constituted as acts of terrorism?
No they weren't. Hitler wanted to take over the world and he had to be stopped. Japan attacked us. We even warned them of what was coming, but they ignored it. Then, after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender.
If we were to nuke the entire middle east just to be done with it, that would be an act of terrorism.
You are simply supporting my argument. The parallel is quite apparent. A foreign power has imposed its will in the Middle East. The response by those who seek to counteract it must be asymmetrical since they cannot fight head-to-head. You then make a statement about proportionality, which again to some of the insurgents is a battle of the highest order; meaning to reach their end goal of driving out the foreign power extraordinary actions must be taken.
Hrmm... I don't disagree. I was talking about innocent people. Surely you don't think everyone in Iraq is either a terrorist or a sympathizer?
Of course, when people cry out about innocents being killed over there, I don't know whether they're talking about innocent people or sympathizers.
Al Sharpton gets owned.
Sharpton's such an idiot.
So, according to you, there are only two possibilities:
1. The terrorists&sympathizers are a tiny minority in a huge sea of innocents
2. ALL are sympathizers&terrorists
I see no evidence for either assertion.
Al Sharpton is so obnoxious I won't see that clip.
You're putting words in my post, I didn't make either assertion: I was asking about yours when you posted this:
in response to this:
Well, then the innocents can start organizing themselves and inform upon those in their neighboorhood that they suspect harbour terrorist sympathies.
Thats more easily said than done when your entire family will be killed for talking.
And that's precisely why they need to do so, in order not to remain slaves and hostages any longer..
Armchair quarterbacking is a nice thing to do, isnt it.
Sure it is.
Doesn't invalidate my statements, though.
It's not my fault the US government didn't actively seek out the secularists within Iraq in order to find a firm basis for an internal government, but instead made the insane decision to give over power to committed religionists.
Im not disagreeing with your message. Just saying its not that easy.
Where did I say it would be easy?
It is difficult enough getting into the heads of decision-making Americans that being labelled as "a person of sincere faith" should not necessarily be regarded as a compliment.
Would you still consider someone innocent if they lived in fear and would never take that action... (i.e. they'd prefer to sit trembling until someone saves them because they feel powerless?). I suppose one argument could be that the terrorists are leading by fear and anyone that allows themselves to be led by fear is somewhat guilty.
I'm currently assuming the military politics have simply accepted there will be innocents dying and have justified it with a Utilitarian sort of argument.
Separate names with a comma.