Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM

But Hedges has equivocated regarding suicide bombings in his work, and Hitchens has every right to take the opportunity to point up this sinister aspect of Hedges anti-Americanism/anti-Christianity.

Hedges’ comment about thinking he ought to be reading White Man’s Burden was an attempted stab at any Western thought that “we” can improve the lot of those less advanced. A nifty zinger by Hitch, indeed.

But his harshest comments were aimed at the audience, and were outstanding in their passion.

…and by the way a lot of your own future, ladies and gentlemen, is staked on the hope that federal secular democrats can emerge from this terrible combat, and that we can protect them, and offer them help while they do so. We know that they’re there, and I’ve met them, I love them, and they’re our friends.

Every member of the 82nd Airborne Division could be a snake-handling congregationalist for all I know. But these men and women, who you sneer and jeer at them, and snigger when you hear applause and excuses for suicide bombers, and you have to live with the shame of having done that. These people are guarding you while you sleep, whether you know it or not, and they’re also creating space for secularism to emerge, and you better hope that they are successful.

Pardon me transcribing, but it was worth repeating, especially on D-Day.

Any, by the way, Hedges never denies his apologia for suicide bombers when directly accused by Hitchens.

…it’s the exact [pointing directly at Hedges] equivalent of the evil nonsense talked by Hedges and friends of his, who say that suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair…

Thorough ownage.

What’s your point?

PRCalDude on June 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Information. You haven’t watched the entire debate, I was merely informing you that it’s a discussion of morality. One could get the idea from watching these highlights (as I first did) that Hedges was excusing suicide bombings, he isn’t.

In such debate? This was pretty much just a convention at a college where these two could hawk their books. It was a discussion of morality, and Hitchens used the discussion to appear the hero by saying, basically, “suicide bombings are immoral”–not that hard.

Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM

What’s your point?

then it’s appropriate to discuss Christianity in such debate

PRCalDude on June 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM

In such debate? This was pretty much just a convention at a college where these two could hawk their books. It was a discussion of morality, and Hitchens used the discussion to appear the hero by saying, basically, “suicide bombings are immoral”–not that hard.

Yes. When you watch it all Hedges isn’t really excusing suicide bombings, he wants to talk about religion (specifically Christianity) in America whereas Hitchens wants to talk about Islam worldwide. Hedges just does a horrible job at debating but otherwise he doesn’t say anything as “morally reprehensible” as ’suicide bombings are okay.’

I’m fairly certain Hitchens has read plenty of Hedges’ writings and was addressing those. That’s what you do in a debate. When you see Christians in America plotting violent acts, then it’s appropriate to discuss Christianity in such debate, but not until.

Is there anywhere we can here the entire debate?

PRCalDude on June 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Yes. When you watch it all Hedges isn’t really excusing suicide bombings, he wants to talk about religion (specifically Christianity) in America whereas Hitchens wants to talk about Islam worldwide. Hedges just does a horrible job at debating but otherwise he doesn’t say anything as “morally reprehensible” as ‘suicide bombings are okay.’

Referring to books you haven’t read in a debate with a well-read person? How stupid is that?

I believe he has read it, as has just about anybody who has taken a college level English course, Hitchens was just trying to get in a “zing” moment.

Hedges is a prime example (see also, the entire list of Dem Presidential candidates); they have this air of moral superciliousness that is sickening, and I’m glad Hitchens, for all his other flaws, past and present, is speaking up from the left about the dangers of Islamofascism.

Is there anywhere we can here the entire debate?

I believe he became a U.S. citizen just recently.

Uh, that would be legally, not in the dark of night.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

Get out the Bactene ointment. Wow.

There isnt enough Bactene ointment on the entire planet to ease that………….

you still have yet to admit Hedges should have never let himself get in that position

That’s like saying Hedges shouldn’t be who he is. That’s what these guys do. They get up in these forums and preach sloppy intellectual treacle to a choir of adoring undergraduates, and gradually come to believe they are smart. They never dreamed that someone who is truly smart, and well-educated, would come along.

vcferlita on June 6, 2007 at 9:04 AM
I agree about the arrogance. He’s a great guy to have on your side, but . . .

What you mean is that you wish you had read it.

This is the quintessence of the term pseudo-intellectual. Referring to books you haven’t read in a debate with a well-read person? How stupid is that? That’s like throwing a hanging curve to Hank Aaron.

I don’t get what Hedges is getting at when he says he should be reading Shipling’s White Man’s Work

Right before Hedges saya that Hitchens paraphrases Kipling’s “Tommy”:

“Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;”

Hedges stupidly gets the name of the poem wrong hence Hitchens’ retort.