Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Hitchens v Galloway: Debate Scheduled
"I hope they both lose" (Hislop on the Al Fayed v Hamilton Libel Trial)
I think we can all agree that this match-up is a marvellous thing. If only because someone might get described as a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay".
Of the two, Hitchens is of course to be preferred, as he is a thorough-going secularist and honorary associate of the NSS.
But he is also a propagator of the lie that it is 'lefties' and 'multiculturalists' who have somehow caused the rise of theocratic fascism, whilst it is in fact neo-con imperialism which has caused genuine grievances and rightwing/ conservative elements who have rubbed shoulders with the mullahs in their criticism of 'western decadence'.
Hitchens also claims that opponents of Bush's voluntary war are somehow supporters of the suicide bombers, through ignorance or malice. Whereas critics of the war from all sides - conservative, left or within the intelligence service estimated (correctly) that it would make us less safe.
Galloway is a sectarian. He may be right that the UK should not have joined the US in its attack on Iraq, but pointing this out is not the limit of his activities. He's also hijacking the consensus against the war and combining it with the perception of wider international injustices to create an overtly sectarian constituency. He said:
"..the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries."
When he says 'Muslims' he means adherents of political Islam; i.e., the political view that the disposition of the law should be influenced by Sharia. He can't mean 'Muslims' in the sense of 'people born into cultures where Islam was a dominant politico-religious influence', because otherwise he wouldn't be such a enthusiast for Baathism, which slaughtered so many of them:
"(Saddam Hussein is).. likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people."
And of course:
"Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."
I understand that Uday was also indefatigable.
I think we can all agree that this match-up is a marvellous thing. If only because someone might get described as a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay".
Of the two, Hitchens is of course to be preferred, as he is a thorough-going secularist and honorary associate of the NSS.
But he is also a propagator of the lie that it is 'lefties' and 'multiculturalists' who have somehow caused the rise of theocratic fascism, whilst it is in fact neo-con imperialism which has caused genuine grievances and rightwing/ conservative elements who have rubbed shoulders with the mullahs in their criticism of 'western decadence'.
Hitchens also claims that opponents of Bush's voluntary war are somehow supporters of the suicide bombers, through ignorance or malice. Whereas critics of the war from all sides - conservative, left or within the intelligence service estimated (correctly) that it would make us less safe.
Galloway is a sectarian. He may be right that the UK should not have joined the US in its attack on Iraq, but pointing this out is not the limit of his activities. He's also hijacking the consensus against the war and combining it with the perception of wider international injustices to create an overtly sectarian constituency. He said:
"..the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries."
When he says 'Muslims' he means adherents of political Islam; i.e., the political view that the disposition of the law should be influenced by Sharia. He can't mean 'Muslims' in the sense of 'people born into cultures where Islam was a dominant politico-religious influence', because otherwise he wouldn't be such a enthusiast for Baathism, which slaughtered so many of them:
"(Saddam Hussein is).. likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people."
And of course:
"Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."
I understand that Uday was also indefatigable.
