25 comments on “Christopher Hitchens at Freedom From Religion Foundation 5/7”

• 

  soapfiction

  December 10, 2010 at 5:57 pm

  @thegreatestbak We have, thank you very much, and absolutely none of what you have said is true. You can’t even list your sources, because they don’t exist. If all you can do is type “lies and more lies” over and over again, your attempts to sway are fruitless. The US has not gotten a single drop of oil from Iraq, and the number of Iraqi dead doesn’t reach anywhere near that high. The studies which claim so have been thoroughly debunked by basic math alone. These are the facts.

• 

  countertreason

  December 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

  Wow. I am absolutely shocked at how cold of a reception he is receiving… in the USA, I guess it is moreso the caes that their dovish liberal population tends toward atheism more freely; hawkish conservatives and classical liberals feeling as though, much to their dismay, they have to keep their atheistic views private and low-key so as to not anger their religious allies.
  That needs to change. The right-wing needs to drop its religious overtones and stick to being a mere political movement.

• 

  lesnem

  December 10, 2010 at 6:14 pm

  @thegreatestbak the most recent Iraqi oil trade negotiations gave leading deals to Angola and Russia, not the USA.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 6:43 pm

  @Re5Publica

  Lies and more lies. i invite anyone reading this post to look up the stats for themselves.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm

  @thegreatestbak It’s perfectly researchable, and I invite anyone to look.

  “Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.” – Vivienne Walt, Time magazine, “U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields”

  The latest studies put the Iraq war dead at 90, 000 to 150 000, uncluding studies by the Associated Press, Iraqi Body Count, and the Iraqi Health Ministry for the WHO. You need an update.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm

  @Re5Publica

  Yeah…they decide in a country run by the United States—and you’re wrong again, virtually all the contracts were given to American Oil Companies.

  1 Million Iraqis dead- look it up for yourself my source is reuters. I can’t post any links here. It’s over 1 million and it is no exaggeration.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm

  @thegreatestbak The Iraqi oil ministry decides who to give contracts to. They even show the sales live on national TV. Iraq’s oil is no longer the personal property of Saddam Hussein.

  Iraq wants more investment. Most oil contracts were not given to American companies, and anyone who says America profitted monetarily from the war in Iraq is either ignorant, or a liar.

  1 million people didn’t die, you exaggerated the real number by around 800%. But, you like to exaggerate.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 8:15 pm

  @Re5Publica

  ….both by the forced of Islamic Jihad and by Western Imperialism, from developing the kind of infastructure that would allow them to compete with the west. This is a matter of course, though—after all, all of history is a history of struggle for power and resources. Iraq is now giving out oil contracts—Exxonn etc. is now selling barrells for 1.46.

  Surpise Surpise. The ugly forces of western imperialism have spared none…not even with over one million iraqis dead.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm

  @Re5Publica

  Islam doesn’t ‘lead to poliical stabliity’ but then neither did Catholicism or any western religion. Relatively though, there WAS a period in which Islamic Civilization, if not Islam itself, was indeed more stable….much more so in fact. In fact it is fair to say the Eastern Renaissance was as profound in its way and in the way that it contributed to the western one as the west is now. It is a shame that the east is imperialistically dominated at the moment and disallowed

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm

  @Re5Publica

  ….and was MORE enlightened, BETTER off, ETC. ETC.

  To not admit this is simply to admit an adamant and barely masked bigotry towards eastern civilizations, if we are to admit that Islam is merely the Eastern form of Religious nonsense that swept the world and served to control populations of various continents. Islam is merely a competitor to Catholicism and remains so. You have said that you know what the Islamic Golden Age was. In that care, be sure to give it credit.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 9:45 pm

  @Re5Publica

  …an ultimately hollow and silly resentment of Islam now that is your business but the facts present themselves, and they point to the fact that the west would not be what it is now if it was not for the influence of Eastern cultures at that time. All monotheisms are shit, and at one time Islam was LESS shitty. Even if I was to admit that the renaissnace did not happen because of Islam (directly), you must concede my point that Islam had at one point more stability

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  @Re5Publica

  Thanks for spelling it out for me when I have already explicitly stated my understanding that the renassiance was an adoption of roman and greek culture. What you don’t seem to realize is my POINT. Moorish Spain was no more politically unstable than any of the wars that raged across Europe around the time of the renaissance–the moors ruled spain for hundreds of years. If you feel the need to scrap the influence of Islamic culture on Europe for the sake of

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 10, 2010 at 9:54 pm

  @thegreatestbak By romanticizing, I mean exaggerating for the purpose of making it look better than it really is.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm

  @thegreatestbak What was the Italian Renaissance? An adoption of Islamic culture and tradition? Or was it a humanist, artistic, and philosophical movement inspired by Roman and Greek tradition?

  Moorish Spain is a great example of political instability. Try and count how many rival caliphates, and sultanates, dynasties and emirates sprung up on the iberian peninsula.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm

  @Re5Publica

  It’s repulsive to suggest that you think you have to be an apologist by simply acknowledging that some of Islamic History is Indeed romantic, if by romantic what we mean is that despite religious bigotry its civilization was allowed to develop better than the west did at one point. Historical circumstances DO allow for flourishing at times. Clearly, this is not possible now as in places like Iraq, the infastructure is so poor that extremists have taken over islam. I lament this

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 10, 2010 at 11:50 pm

  @Re5Publica

  Yes, but who were Aristotle, Plato, Galen and Hippocrates basing themselves on? Ancient Persians, ert. All of history goes in a circle–and the west in turn took what the Islamic civilizations built on after this point. The only reason I bring up the term is to point out essentially that yes, Islamic Civilizations were once stable.

  I DO believe in ‘romanticizing’ Islamic history if it is true. Islamic Civilizations were once far above and contributed far more than western ones.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 11, 2010 at 12:29 am

  @thegreatestbak I know what the Islamic golden age is, stop being condescending, it makes you look cheap.

  You know it’s possible that someone can have the same information as you, and still disagree with your conclusions. So quit being childish.

  All empires go through a golden age after fresh conquests… what were Muslim philosophers and scientists basing themselves on? Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Hippocrates.

  I don’t believe in romanticizing Islamic history, just to appear fair, or cultured.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 12:50 am

  @thegreatestbak

  but I dont think it is fair to say there was never a time when Islam led to political stability when during the dark ages Islam was instrumental in keeping learning alive when Catholicism was relatively more barbaric. My essential point therefore is that Islam was at one point more stable than Catholicism at a period in time when Religion was what dominated the landscape.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 1:33 am

  @Re5Publica

  I think what you are neglecting is the instrumental role of the moors in Spain and a host of various other factors. Still, if the essential argument is that Islam did not ever lead to a time of political stability, I am still very mch in the right. The contributions Of Islam (keeping science, culture, etc alive) was to ultimately contribute all its teachings to the west. Obviously as an Iranian Atheist I resent the impact of Islam,

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 2:28 am

  @Re5Publica

  …in the eastern world as well. When Europe was in the dark ages, Islam was blossoming—its called the Golden Age Of Islam. I suggest you read your history before you provide me with a response. No sense arguing if you don’t know wha tyou are tlaking about or can’t even cite a historical event but instead present me with platitudes and conjectuture about the islamic kings and caliphates.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 11, 2010 at 2:41 am

  @thegreatestbak That’s one theory, that people fleeing Constantinople as it was being sieged by Muslim Turks brought with them greek manuscripts to Italy.

  I didn’t say it didn’t have an impact, that’s a strawman, it certainly didn’t have the profound romantic impact you imagine however. The Romans and Greeks had a much more profound impact on Western civilization, than Muslims. This, I don’t think is disputed by any historian.. maybe just a few Muslims with an inferiority complex.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 2:49 am

  @Re5Publica

  Islam also was indirectly responsible for the Reformation: if the Turks hadn’t conquered Constantinople in 1453 all those fabulous Greek manuscripts that inaugurated “the New Learning” in the late 15th century, forming the soil from which the Reformation grew, never would have wound up in the West, and the Reformers never would have realized the Catholic view of Justification was in error.

  Recognize that Europe would never have gone through the rennaissance if not for events

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 3:25 am

  @Re5Publica

  Apparently you have trouble dichpering an argument even when I have clearly spelled out the difference between my argument with regard to religion and politics. I have expressly stated that Islam was at one point less violent, less totalistarian than Catholicism. Now as to your question–the reason Europe embraced greek and roman traditions was because of the fall of constantinople. The influx of libraries and knowledge also followed the moors in their conquest of spain.

• 

  Re5Publica

  December 11, 2010 at 3:40 am

  @thegreatestbak Bernard Lewis, said the Crusades were essentially a mimickry of the Islamic Jihad. It makes sense, remissions of sin in warfare is not a Christian concept, but it’s certainly Islamic. If u think I don’t give credit to Islamic contributions to science, you’re wrong, but I think you’re making a misake by romanticizing Islamic history. There was very little that was despicable that the Catholics were doing, that the Muslims weren’t also doing, if you can think of something, name it.

• 

  thegreatestbak

  December 11, 2010 at 4:10 am

  @Re5Publica

  Observe the achievements of Islamic Civilizations during the Caliphate.

  Tell me a time when Catholicism led to political stability. Both religions are innately evil and both have led to rdestruction. By pointing a time when Eastern Civilization was flourisishing, I only mean to point out that both religions are barbaric. This is why CHristopher Hitchens always says Islam is a greater menace “AT THE MOMENT”