Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by howtoplayalone


1. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153952 by howtoplayalone on April 2, 2008 at 9:05 am

"I retract that call for a ban. "

good, you should. and i don't think we should apply rigorous controls to hate speech.

2. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153947 by howtoplayalone on April 2, 2008 at 8:58 am

rawandi, you think the Koran should be banned?

3. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153898 by howtoplayalone on April 2, 2008 at 7:37 am

Watch this if you haven't seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

I wrote this on my blog a couple of weeks ago:

"Forget what you think about Israel, for a moment. In during the 61st session of the General Assembly of the UN (2006/2007), while 22 anti-Israel resolutions were passed, none, not a single resolution, was passed on Sudan's genocide in Darfur, to take just one example. This fanatical obsession with Israel allows hundreds of thousands to be slaughtered with impunity.

"In other words, while perhaps - maybe - hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israel, and while tens of thousands were killed in Darfur, Israel received 22 times the condemnations while being responsible for 1,000 times less deaths, that is, if you could multiply by zero, the amount of condemnations against Sudan (nevermind the intentions of the Israelis compared with the intentions of the murderers in Darfur, or the guilt of the dead). The computations defy the brain."

4. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131341 by howtoplayalone on February 22, 2008 at 9:27 am

And yes, in this context, Afghan independence does probably mean Muslim polity - in that the occupiers are non-Muslim infidels.

Go find the data. If it doesn't exist yet, that's an assumption I'm willing to make.

5. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131335 by howtoplayalone on February 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

al-rawandi,

You could just read my post here: 131294

You assume that I "assume the only reason to support suicide bombings is "Islamic"" (What's with all the quotes?). As I said, there are indeed the often-paraded (always with reference to Robert Pape and his [crappy] data) Tamil Tigers out there killing civilians. They are Marxist (another dogma), but often Hindu as well, and therefore no doubt believe some goofy things about the afterlife.

It doesn't change the fact that almost all terror is committed by Muslims and they will justify it by refering to Islam. Remove Islam, keep the oppression, and poof goes most of the suicide bombing of civilians, and plenty of the terror as well.

6. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131317 by howtoplayalone on February 22, 2008 at 8:40 am

131314:

But the justifications, if they had been noted or made, for all of that support would be made with reference to Islam or the Koran.

7. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131294 by howtoplayalone on February 22, 2008 at 7:39 am

The use of "terrorism" as a tactic is more a function of resources, opportunity, and political situation than of religious ideology. The leading source of suicide attacks in the world do not emanate from an Islamic group, but rather the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group.

That's ridiculous. The group that almost all terrorists belong to is Islam, their leader is the prophet and their how-to book is the Koran (I don't put terror in quotes, as if the intentional murder of innocents is only hypothetically terroristic). They may be upset about army boots near Mecca, but they are willing to die because of the afterlife and have theological justifications for killing civilians. They don't need to belong to one gang to be motivated by the same idea - their group is Islam (and "al-Qaeda in Iraq" has surely passed by the Tamil Tigers).

If common sense didn't make you dubious of Robert Pape, this might

http://www.meforum.org/article/1826#_ftn7

unless one is determined to absolve Islam and blame, well take your pick.

The West, America, and Israel certainly have a lot to account for, and many Muslims have understandable grievances, but remove Islam (or religion) it's black and white morality and insane idea about the afterlife from the world and there goes almost all your suicide bombing and justifications for intentionally murdering, say, tourists in Bali and Afghans at a dog fight.

One can cling to the Tamil Tigers as proof that all terror is not committed by Muslims dreaming about the afterlife, and someone else can claim that because Tibet doesn't have terror at all (never mind suicide bombing) as proof that lack of opportunity and political oppression does not create a culture of justifying murder (indeed, their distinctly un-violent religion gets some credit there - if Tibetans were Muslims you could bet you'd be seeing a lot more death).

8. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #73970 by howtoplayalone on September 27, 2007 at 12:36 am

I know those guys are doing their best, but I they really let me down. The lousy debate with Mike Seaver, the embarrassing letter to Shermer, and unwisely using a word like 'jihad.' Their podcasts and videos make me cringe, too. Sorry.

9. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72475 by howtoplayalone on September 21, 2007 at 8:02 am

Nicholas Wade, the guy who wrote this article wrote a fantastic book called BEFORE THE DAWN about human evolution. It brings together all the latest DNA research into the story, like no other popular book has.

Fantastic.

10. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69631 by howtoplayalone on September 12, 2007 at 1:45 am

xabstract! That was fast. Well done!

suckitjesus.com

She's dating the Woz now, BTW. No doubt he filled a Jesus-shaped hole in her life, as he did for so many of us.

(edit: sexual innuendo not intended. "God-shaped hole" reference my only intention.)

11. Bible Belter

Comment #68160 by howtoplayalone on September 6, 2007 at 9:11 am

I think it should be said that while Hitchens is often a merciless debater, it's usually with people who got it coming, both because of their ridiculous beliefs, but also because of their righteousness.

I've heard a number of debates between Hitchens and fundamentalists that were cordial and even friendly. Other debaters, like Hedges, the apologist for suicide murderers, get, well, abused (Hitchens ran off stage and refused to even shake his hand, apparently).

A good review, and I especially like what you said right at the end about not reviewing his politics. I don't share many of Hitchens' political views but as an atheist and reasonable thinker I do share his critique of religion.


Well said, by both Mark7895 and Dawkins.

12. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65269 by howtoplayalone on August 23, 2007 at 12:25 pm

While I agree with most of his criticisms of Shermer's letter, the grammar is stunningly bad. This will prevent people who won't put up with such bad writing from taking it, or him, seriously (I don't agree with judging people on their grammar, but the fact is many people do. If you're trying to be taken seriously in an intellectual debate, or especially if you're trying to play a part in representing a "movement," it's best to at least know Darwin's from Darwins.) It's not, after all, just a blog post or even a comment, but is intended (I presume) to be a serious reply. It's embarrassing.

And while I agree with his points, his arguments are put forth about as well as when he dbated Mike Seaver. I mean, not very well.

I don't care much if someone says "chick," but using it in this kind of writing (on a blog or not) doesn't add much depth, nor does it suggest that one be paid attention to.

Mostly, though, what is Dennett doing on this list?

13. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64068 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I noticed knee-jerk hatred this when Hitchens was first mentioned on this website (go back and read the comments, they're amusing); most of the comments were something like "he supported the war in Iraq, therefore I'm not going to listen to him about religion."

And yet, as people heard what he had to say and how well he said it, they stopped judging everything he said in light of his stance on the war in Iraq, and many of them in fact came to see some of his points, not to say they agreed with him.

I'm sure it's the same on the right (although I couldn't say), but I notice that people on the 'left' who disagree strongly with someone's (a writer, usually) stance on something, extend that dislike to anything the person writes about. "This Hitchens video about religion is might be OK, but I'm not gonna pay attention because he supported the war in Iraq." Or "This Dershowitz article (or book) on the separation of church and state is insightful, but he wrote a book in defense of Israel, so the hell with him."

His stance on Iraq might be / may have been detestable, but is it necessary to bring it up when he talks about other subjects?

Actually I'm curious. What do people here think? If someone makes a bad (in some people's opinion) call about Iraq or Israel (see the comments here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1529,Church-and-State-Divided-we-stand,Alan-Dershowitz )
does that make everything he or she says not to be trusted?

Or, did anyone think similar things about Hitchens, for example, and then change their mind when they heard or read other things he had to say?

14. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #64004 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 8:52 am

And btw, what book was it in that Dershowitz cries when his son marries a gentile? If you have access to it, when you get back online, maybe you could transcribe that quote, in context.

15. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63994 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 7:14 am

logical -

I apologize for saying that about your English; I wasn't aware it was not your native language.

Nevertheless, beyond your English, I don't think your attacks on Dershowitz or your defense of Finkelstein make sense, and if one makes such accusations and and defenses, they should be able to back them up.

Congratulations on being anti-war. So am I, depending on the justifications, and so was Dershowitz, if you're talking about Iraq.

16. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63979 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 6:10 am

logical -

So is Dershowitz only "claiming" to be an atheist?

As he pretended to write his book?

The blurb from the so-called atheist on Sam Harris' book was probably just another machination from the Zionist Apologist! He's just pretending he's an atheist... who knows what he has planned! Hide your daughters, disbelievers!

The link you put in is the same link I suggested people watch: the debate about Dershowitz' book from Democracy now. After dropping the idea that he didn't write it (you seem to still think someone else did, if not Mossad then his 'typists' - some proof would be great) Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagarism, which consisted of saying Dershowitz cited sources in Peters' book without noting that he got the numbers from Peters' book. That might be plagarism, I don't know, although Harvard and everyone else who is not openly out to discredit any book that defends Israel (and sold a lot) laughed at the charges.

Nobody is accusing him of falsifing facts (the one that Finkelstein shrieks about is a statistic whose error hurts Dershowitz's point - clearly if he were making up facts he'd make up facts that support his point) and nobody is accusing him of copying the prose stylings of Joan Peters. Big Deal. (And worse has been said about Chomsky and Finkelstein anyway, but again, who cares; I'd be more interested in their facts and interpretations than wether or not they mis-cited something or even plagarized).

Who cares if he writes a lot of books? (People attack Dershowitz for writing a lot, and praise Chomsky for writing a lot. It's bizarre.)

Make some arguments about the book itself (which you surely didn't read), or something in this essay (which you seem to have read only the first two paragraphs of).

Finkelstein was not denied tenure because of Dershowitz. Read about why he was denied tenure.

Finally, this Atheist (is that a word, along with Israel Lobby, we capitalize now as well?) would prefer a man who meddles in a (nasty, holocaust survivor mocking, witchhunting, conspiracy spouting, lousy scholaring) person's tenure process to your "consistent, princlpled" Finkelstein who said the filth in comment 22. (Have a go at even acknowledging those comments.)

I'm not very interested in what either of them think about abortion. Just for the hell of it, I'll take your word for it: Dershowitz's opinions on abortions are bad, very bad (although I doubt it, and that stand ain't enough to make me distrust Hitchens), and Finkelstein took a Principled Stand when he told the Catholic University that he thought abortion was a matter of choice. Whoa, move over Rosa Parks.

The points for me are are 1. is this essay on separation of church and state worthy of consideration even though it was written by (gasp) a defender of Israel, and 2. wether it makes any sense to encourage "high skepticism" of Dershowitz by reference to Finkelstein.

I'd encourage everyone to read all the links, and watch the video. Anyone who's not already prone to be shrilly skeptical of anyone who defends Israel (moderately, read the book too, not only the attackers) in print will, I have confidence, think Finkelstein is as much of a lunatic as his quotes in comment 22 make him out to be, and will think that this essay is perhaps worthy of ten minutes despite the fact that it has the Zionist Apologist Dershowitz's name on it.

If I neglected to respond to anything in your posts, "logical," it's because, although you seem to have points to make, your prose, frankly, borders on incomprehensible. That's just my interpretation though.

Mr. Empirical: "That crappy interview will not undo the ownage" is a keeper.

17. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63827 by howtoplayalone on August 16, 2007 at 10:31 am

Windweaver:

I'm sure you could find a better quote or interview to help people "understand the history between Dershowitz and Chomsky," than the one you gave. It does nothing to contradict anything in the article that Mr. Empirical posted in comment 32.

You could also say why you trust Finkelstein, taking into the considerations the quotes from my comment 22, more than the "noted Israeli Lobby apologist."

(Or, if you read it, why this pro-separation of church and state essay is something we should be "highly skeptical" of.)

For anyone who's interested in the history of their feud, here is a link to a chapter of Dershowitz's book "The Case for Peace" in PDF, which continues and expands on the points from Mr. Empirical's link.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Chapter_16.pdf

Dershowitz bugs me in many ways, but he's nowhere near as mortifying as Finkelstein.

Finkelstein (If you want to look into the eyes of a madman, watch Dershowitz and Finkelstein debate in video on Democracy Now. Finkelstein looks and speaks like a robot, a zombie.) even accused Dershowitz of not having written his book, the nudge-nudge was that it was written by the ever-sneaky Mossad.

Then Dershowitz produced his handwritten manuscript. Opps.

18. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63646 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 7:38 am

Re-reading the comments, it looks like most people haven't read the entire article - only two paragraphs are posted, click the link to read all of it.

19. After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

Comment #63639 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 7:18 am

Two excellent and informative podcasts / interviews on what's happening in Pakistan's 'tribal areas.' (From a great show.)

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/07/20070731_a_main.asp

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/07/20070710_a_main.asp

20. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63620 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Windweaver -

I'm highly skeptical of anyone who drags Israel into a conversation about the separation of church and state, capitalizes the Israeli "Lobby" for extra spooky-ness, and trusts Finkelstein, who said these gems:

"Elie Wiesel is such a ridiculous character… The expression 'There's no business like Shoah-business' is literally coined for him…He's turned it into a business, where he casts himself as a person who's doing all this from anguish and pain and personal sacrifice, while he has made a fortune out of it."


"All opinion-leader, from the left to the right, are Jews…The Silence around my book in the US – if this is not a conspiracy, then what is one?"


Maybe no one read his book because it got reviews, in addition to the one by Bartov, the Zionist Apologist, like this, from hardly Israel-friendly Salon, which is however apparently Apologizing for the Zionist Lobby as well:

Finkelstein insists on seeing "elites" everywhere, notably those of the Jewish persuasion, "marching in lockstep with American power." These elites, the hidden hand of "organized American Jewry" behind the Holocaust industry, have one goal: not the teaching of history but the furthering of "Jewish aggrandizement."


Also a movie critic, and exposer of Jews run wild in Hollywood:

"Give me a better reason!…Who profits [Schindler's LIst]? Basically, there are two beneficiaries from the dogmas [of Schindler's List]: American Jews and the American administration…"

"The name of the character is Ari Ben Canaan [Paul Newman in Exodus] because Ari is the diminutive for Aryan. It is the whole admiration for this blond haired, blue eyed type."

"In 1978, NBC produced the series Holocaust. Do you believe, it was a coincidence, 1978? Just at this time, when peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt took place in Camp David?"


He's an astute spotter of poseurs (who are in it for the dough, of course):

"I am not exaggerating when I say that one out of three Jews you stop in the street in New York will claim to be a survivor."


He's also loved by world's foremost authority on Holocaust Denial (to use your dubious phrase) Ernst Zundel, who said this about Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry:

"I feel like a kid in a candy store. I can barely keep up with the glorious news. Imagine all these politically incorrect things being said by these Jews in their angst…Nonetheless, this Finkelstein fellow is gutsy!... [The book is] exceedingly useful to us and to the Revisionist cause. He is making three-fourths or our argument, and making it effectively. Never fret the rest of the argument is being made by us, and will topple the lie without our lifetime. We would not be making vast inroads in Europe with our outreach program, were it not for his courageous little booklet, he Holocaust Industry."


So, as much as Dershowitz bugs me, you better believe I'll trust him over a man who's made a conspiratorial career out of discredited attacks on other people's writing, who are all Jews who don't hate Israel, and sometimes defend it. Call them Zionist apologists if you want.

"Highly skeptical" of Finkelstein is an understaement. I think it was the New York Times (part of the Zionist conspiracy no doubt) that said he should crawl back under his rock.

Dershowitz has just published Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence.

I think his argument that the separation of church and state is good for religion is a rehtorical move to get the churches to realize that it might nto be in their interest to try to tear it down. He's an atheist who's blurb appeared on End of Faith. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, what he does, or who he is, but I'm perfectly willing to read this essay with an open mind.

I wouldn't say the same about anything Finkelstein has written.

21. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63593 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 3:11 am

Windweaver:

I don't care for Dershowitz as a person, but Finkelstein is really nasty and despicable. Check out these to see why:

http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Bartov00a/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021204232909/http://www.goldhagen.com/nda0.html

22. 'Delusion' Revisits Faith Vs. Reason Debate

Comment #63346 by howtoplayalone on August 14, 2007 at 2:04 am

Henri Bergson -

Negatively lumping all South Koreans in to a group because of the amount of Christians there reflects badly on you, as does comparing them to the 'sheep' of North Korea (one supposes; it's not clear who you mean by sheepy neighbors).

23. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62518 by howtoplayalone on August 10, 2007 at 3:06 am

I thought that was a parody until I clicked on the site.

24. Electrons to Enlightenment 4: Debating Darwin

Comment #61665 by howtoplayalone on August 6, 2007 at 7:46 am

I thought it was a 53 minutes well spent. I wasn't very familiar with the 'convergence' theory, and I wasn't immediately able to write it off, as can be done so easily with intelligent design, if you've heard the arguments against it. The last woman seemed loopy, but loopy in a new way.

If anyone wants to comment on why the convergence idea is so ridiculous I'd appreciate it, or post links.

And it's always a pleasure to hear Dawkins and Dennett when they're being asked more challenging questions than they're usually asked.

25. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53949 by howtoplayalone on July 4, 2007 at 10:41 am

Moebius (comment 15) -

For more information about why making rationalizations for suicide bombing that the bombers don't make for themselves and often (doctors or engineers or not) can't even articulate is not in anyone's interest, I'd recommend Johann Hari and Nick Cohen in the Guardian, Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims" on Palestine and Israel, and Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" (which, for those interested, is the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Further selling points, it's easily read in a day (meaning only that it's not a commitment one need fear adding to the stack on the shelf) and the prose is fantastic).

26. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53944 by howtoplayalone on July 4, 2007 at 10:15 am

Mango said:

""Norwegians aren't doing this — nor are starving Africans or unemployed Mexicans.""

"He can't compare religions with nationalities."

Of course he can, and he is doing so here to show that religion, particularly this one from which essentially all suicide murderers come (recall Tibet), is more likely to produce suicides for a cause and murder of disco-goers than nationalities alone.

Duff, in comment 3, is right on the money indeed. What we need to hope is happening is that Muslim parents (never mind clergy) are telling their kids "These people do not represent you or your faith. They are evil, don't romanticize them." That is not happening enough, though, and the kids are often hearing "They deserve it; They weren't Muslims who did it; it was a set up [or even] it was the Jews."

And wasn't this likely about Salman Rushdie getting tapped on the shoulder with a sword? Holy shit.

27. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50628 by howtoplayalone on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am

The worst part was when Scheer slams his hand on the table and shouts "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG," at Harris. Some impartiality - it would have been childish enough (especially in contrast with Harris' Zen-like Mr. Spockness) if Hedges had done it, but he's the moderator.

Is the statement "A well done Pew poll is worth 1,000 man hours of you wandering around the Middle East" simply wrong? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and certainly not worth that outburst from Scheer.

I'm ready to write him off. He always bugged me on Left, Right and Center (radio debate show) and disappointed in that he couldn't get the left's (and my) side across without sounding like a grumpy old man who wanted to be somewhere other than in a debate with those center and right fools who were wrong, wrong, wrong.

So much for Scheer.

As for Rtambree, my old friend, where does Harris "advocate more western military intervetion"? I haven't heard the whole thing, but does he suggest that?

28. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50621 by howtoplayalone on June 19, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Mr-Spock-like manner"

Ha. That's a keeper.

29. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49915 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 4:37 am

Hitchens is wearing the American flag on the lapel of his jacket.

Good for him. He alternates it with a Kurdish one. I'd bet he's worn a Palestinian one too.

30. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49914 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 4:34 am

Logicel said: So true. But the other jab that can be relied upon to be unfailingly hurled at Hitchens, is his support for the Iraq War.

Yeah, I think that's a jab that's worth hurling, though. But the first posts here about Hitchens were almost entirely about his Iraq position (zzzz) and sounded like "How dare Warmonger Hitchens get a post on this site?"

But have you noticed that as people watch and listen to his interviews/debates (and presumably read his book) they realize there's a lot more to him than what he thought or thinks about Iraq. One guy, can't remember who, said in an early post something like "I used to detest him because of Iraq, but after listening to him, I like him, and even get some of his points on Iraq now." I thought that was pretty big of that poster to say. (I'm not prepared to go that far, although the modified tune he's singing these days makes more sense to me. Maybe I just went that far.)

TITUS: Right on.

31. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49900 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:33 am

"He is also editor-in-chief of World magazine, the fourth most-read newsweekly in the United States."

What the hell is that?

32. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49897 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:30 am

I'm glad I got in before someone mentions "drunk" or "slurring" or "rehab."

Who'd be up for some variation of Godwin's Law (it is Godwin, right)? The first person to mention Hitchen's drinking (if it does not fit the context, and if he's not actually slurring, something he gets accused of but never does) if someone mentions booze out of context then... Well, I don't know. Maybe they have to write "I will not bring up Hitchen's drinking out of context" 100 times on the board?

Ideas?

33. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49546 by howtoplayalone on June 12, 2007 at 10:52 am

And what about Bill Moyers, now risen from the dead?

I don't want to say a bad word about Canada, where I lived for half a year, but I listened to CBC everyday, and thought it came close but didn't match NPR (I might be wrong), and I thought the TV interviewers -- although I admit I didn't watch much -- were equally lame. I'm just throwing that out. I'm probably mistaken. Speak up, Canadians, and correct me.

34. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49543 by howtoplayalone on June 12, 2007 at 10:43 am

ok, I successfully closed the italics left open by howtoplayalone

Opps, sorry, guilty as charged. I have an excuse, but nevermind.

I would submit that we have NPR, with a lot of great interviewers (I don't think I've heard a better interviewer than Terry Gross, and it's certainly not this guy), and Charlie Rose (although, whoa, that interview with Hitchens was dreadful).

I worked with someone once who said "Larry King is a great interviewer." I was speechless.

35. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49500 by howtoplayalone on June 12, 2007 at 6:51 am

How come everybody always thinks Hitchens is drunk when he does an interview?

I think he's probably always been drinking (I think the New Yorker talked about 11 a.m. whiskeys), because he never stops. But I've never seen him "drunk", in the way that mortal drinkers take drunk to mean.

I wouldn't care anyway, but considering he's always more eloquent than anyone else at the table, he never "slurs" like people say he does (his wife says she's only seen him act drunk a handful of times), and he claims to have never, ever missed a deadline - with which his output it really, really impressive.

So, I agree with Big T. It seems really lame that someone feels obliged to mention his drinking in every single post; especially since it has never made him say or do anything he'd seem to regret.

He seems to be a very highly functional alcoholic. Good for him. He claims it inspires him (I'd claim the same, but have to admit some slurs and missed deadlines), and he quotes Churchill: "I've taken much more from alcohol than it's taken from me."

buy all...authors a barrel of whatever he drinks!

Right on, Big T., and it's Johnny Walker Black.

36. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47995 by howtoplayalone on June 6, 2007 at 8:12 am

Suicide...

It's an interesting observation to note the visceral reaction in the mainstream media to death-by-suicide-bomber as opposed all the other ways one can die prematurely.

It's not the suicide - it's the killing of innocents intentionally by suicide! I couldn't be happier if they killed themselves, but the thing that (once, long ago when it began, but clearly no longer) the thing that shocked the world was killing innocents by suicide to go to Heaven. There is no way to stop it, or to persuade against it. It doesn't help combat it when people can only respond with, "Well, Israelis and the West do..."

Feeling the need to point out something western countries have done in response to every comment about intentionally killing innocents, and making these relative claims seems to me like moderate defenders of religion, only much much worse. We can't even agree that it's a unique and absolutely evil act; no, there's always some relative comparison.

I don't know how you get from

if you can't honestly see the difference between (i) sending missiles into civilian cities with intent to murder innocents and (ii) the precision targeting of the launch sites of these missiles

to here:

Yes, I can see the difference. The actual statistics speak for themselves. Example (i) killed less than 50 people. Example (ii) killed over a thousand people (real precise huh?).

But arrive you do, again and again.

I'm with Benjamin; If you refuse to, or can't, see the distinction I'm signing off the discussion.

We could only hope the kindergartens replace this indoctrination with GI Joe or Grand theft Auto, rotten though they are.

And let's hope when the kids grow up they don't have access to weapons to do what their parents only dreamed of doing... Then we might see a more proportional body count that would be fairer, to some.

37. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47941 by howtoplayalone on June 6, 2007 at 5:01 am

However, this actually doesn't frighten me too much. I realise that most people, even children, can tell the difference between play and reality and would never dream of stealing a car/gunning down a police officer etc in real life.

Perhaps we should assume that Palestinian children can also see this difference?

Isn't this a site generally for people who realize the extremes that the religious will go, and are worried about it?

GTA is a game that doesn't help the morals of any kid, but this is a video of five year olds who are made to march around and chant that the highest good is to murder as many people as they can by suicide, so they can go to Heaven. Eternal bliss is being promised here, and the kids believe it. It certainly is child abuse to teach them that, and to rationalize it by comparing it to western kids playing video games... No GTA players go out and murder innocent people so they can get to Heaven. And this is a culture of celebrating martyrdom and death.

This IS reality to them. They really believe it.

Grand Theft Auto...

38. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47916 by howtoplayalone on June 6, 2007 at 3:19 am

Here's a quote from a Hitchens lecture that fits the discussion (Hitchens, who has been and remains one of Israel's biggest critics):

Hitchens: It's exact equivalent of the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It's this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there's been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won't listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.

39. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47914 by howtoplayalone on June 6, 2007 at 3:13 am

BAEOZ:

Sorry, I misunderstood your post I guess.

JesusH:

I couldn't have been more against the Iraq war, nor more disappointed with its handling, but I think you're right on the money. And the idea that Saddam "wasn't hurting his own population" is ridiculous (yes it's worse now, and the war was a mistake and a disaster).

Benjamin (#47812):

Well put.

40. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47788 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Cheers that no one called critics of Israel antisemities, and that no one compared Israel to Nazis either.

But Benjamin's right; saying Israel actually carried out the destruction of Palestine is a little much.

41. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47784 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Opps, I deleted one.

Here, for anyone intersted, is something I read today. Regarding the blaming of Israel for everything:

Egyptian columnist Wael Abdel Fattah wrote in the independent weekly Al-Fagr newspaper that Arabs blame the defeat for "everything" - from "price hikes, dictatorship, religious extremism, sectarian strife, even sexual impotence."

That's right, the Jews are even blamed for Arab sexual impotence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6685636,00.html

42. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47780 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 2:01 pm

For all intents and purposes, there is no political state of Palestine and hasn't been since 1967, so you can't really call for the destruction of something that doesn't really exist.

There was before 1967? What are you talking about? Now, that's nonsense.

The occupation of the WB by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt were literally nasty, squalid prison camps, and lasted until '67. There was no "state" before that, although there should have been, and Jordan and Egypt could have arranged it.

The occupation ain't great now, but a million times better than '66.

43. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47770 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 1:16 pm

>The existential threat to Israel is very real.

Is this a 45 minute threat? Better invade now just in case they have WMDs

Well, equate the threat Israel faces with Bush's lame war if it makes you feel better, even though nobody said any such thing.

Most of the leaders of every country that surrounds Israel on three sides has called for it's destruction. The vast majority of Arabs and the majority of Palestinians do as well. They have waged three wars to destroy Israel, and three times Israel got pretty lucky.

They weren't able to win a "conventional" war, so the new threat is digging in tunnels, hiding amongst civilians so Israel can't retaliate, killing Israeli civilians, biding their time until they have the means - conventional or otherwise, it is plain they don't care what means they use - to do exactly what they've been telling us they plan to do.

Yes, it's an existential threat.

44. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47765 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Egypt & Turkey made peace with Israel, so it's not inherent to Islam to wipe Israel off the map. As I said before, disentangling legitimate political grievances from superstition is fraught with difficulties.

Turkey, the only secular Islamic country. And Egypt, a dictatorship that, when it falls, will see the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's great they made peace with Israel (as did Jordan), but I wish it meant as much as you want it to.

You have to be careful what Palestinians are protesting against. If it's a "Jewish State of Israel" then I agree.

The oldest canard. Jewish means a people as much as a religion; every other country in the Middle East (except Turkey, but that's not gonna last as we saw last month) is a religious state, as are many European countries (UK?); and the non-Jews who are citizens of Israel have more rights than even Mid-East Muslims in Muslim countries.

The majority of Palestinians, and all of democratically-elected Hamas and Hezbollah are "protesting" (I thought we were talking about the intentional killing of civilians) they are protesting against the existence of Israel. There's no compromise for them.

No State should be religious: Christian, Muslim or Jewish. I support secular democracy, hence my condemnation of Saudi Arabia.

Well, you've singled out the only country that approaches secularity in the region (and you still don't acknowledge what the majority of Palestinians want to happen to Israel, and the way they're willing to make it happen). When the Palestinians make a state, in greater Palestine, which it very well might be, or the WB and Gaza, you can be sure it won't be secular. And by then there may be no more Israel to nit-pick about.

45. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47757 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I agree with you. They probably would do much worse. But that's hypothetical.

It's not hypothetical if your an Israeli (I'm not). How many times do they need to say they wan t to destroy Israel? Nasrallah, head of disproportionately killed Hezbollah: "I can only hope that all the diasporia Jews come to Israel; that would save us the trouble of us going after them overseas." It's not hypothetical. It's likely.

There is a real risk of Hezbollah or Hamas getting enough power to do what they intend (destroy Israel and kill Jews). The Israelis see that this is not hypothetical. We know perfectly well what can happen when crazy ideologues get the power to carry out the threats they make against Jews.

When can we learn to take religious fanatics at their word?

Pre 1948 indeed. Let me know when they start killing civilians intentionally again, since we're going on 60 years.

Are you saying the international community is isolated in its stance on Israel?

No, that'd be a non-sequitur. I think the international community, as much as I'd like to support it, doesn't have a good enough record one way or the other to make it very impressive to me, morally or otherwise.

So you admit that the justification of self-defence against this relatively impotent enemy is overstated? It's a pity that Israelis can't aim that well either - otherwise why would over 1,000 Lebanese civilians have died in just a few weeks?

No, again, I think it's more serious than we realize. The existential threat to Israel is very real. They are learning how to aim, and getting better rockets. Will you change your mind when they can kill as many as they intend? Should Israel sit back and wait for international approval before attacking those who attack them and say they want to destroy the country?

Yes, it is a pity that Israel can't aim better. They're pretty fancy scientists. Maybe they can figure out how to kill only uniformed terrorists without killing any civilans at all, and then the defenders of Hamas and the international community will have less to demonize Israel's actions over, although I imagine they'll find a way.

The race it seems that you're pointing out is if Hamas learns to kill every Israel intentionally before Israel successfully kills no civilians intentionally. You might get the outcome your chasing.

46. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47749 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Regarding the numbers, I was referring to the Palestinians killed during the Intifada, not those killed during the Lebanon war, I thought I made that clear, I'm sorry if I didn't.

However, go read the article you linked to. This is total crap, sorry, but if you don't even read the article (from the dubious AP) you shouldn't post those figures - watch your wikipedia quotes. That would be the biggest number of Lebanese dead, not including a large portion of which were Hezbollah fighters (and remember, how do they differentiate between fighters and civilians? Hezbollah wears civilian clothes and they're not going to admit they dead were fighters).

It's a flimsy article anyway, but here's a quote:

Lebanon's top police office, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, says 1,123 Lebanese died in the war -- 37 soldiers and police officers and 1,086 other people, including 894 named victims and 192 unidentified ones.

The report lists the 1,086 dead as "martyrs." It does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah combatants, because the government considers them all Lebanese citizens. It also can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms.

Furthermore, I do buy the good intentions. I think it's important what people intend to do, and to consider what those who intentionally do "bad" things would do if given more power.

If Hezbollah didn't fire from and hide inside civilian ares there'd be no bombing of civilians areas. Hezbollah often hides there for the PR: to make Israel retaliate and kill civilians. How can anyone shill for these people? They're misogynists, racists, homophobics and sexists on top of the creatures that use human shields.

Imagine if Hamas or Hezbollah were responding to the same situation that Israel faces. They're trying to kill as many now as they can.

We will soon, I believe given the support Hezbollah and Hamas have in the west, see when they do have the power to do the damage they intend.

47. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47744 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Filius Nithardi:

Check back in a day and someone will have cleaned up that Wikipedia entry. I trust the National Review about as much as I trust Juan Cole. But nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed those vidoes are faked. Memri might be funded by some shady people, but the video don't lie. I'm not reading their editorials (if there are any), nor believing their numbers. That's one nasty child-abusing video of many, many.

48. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47742 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 11:58 am

Yeah, I saw those maps, and Arafat got around 95 percent of the WB (the 5 or so percent keep for defensive positions, with an equivalent amount of land offered in compensation).

But even if it was a sucky offer, why did Arafat leave without a counter offer? Many people say he had no intention of making peace, and was so surpised by the offer (it was indeed "stunning" to the international community) that he left. Any acceptance of an Israeli peace offer would have, Arafat thought, spelled his political doom. So he screwed the Palestinians out of a viable state for five more years of his own corruption - and now look where the Palestinians are (worse than they've been since '66 when they were occupied by real bastards).

49. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47739 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 11:51 am

>I'm not being sarcastic, but can you say why Israel should be ashamed for using American-supplied weapons?

I didn't say they should be ashamed, only hyprocritical when pointing the finger to Iran for supplying Hezbollah.

But, that's my point exactly! Hezbollah uses them to try to kill civilians....

Reasonable?! Almost the entire international community was outraged at the excess in southern Lebanon last year.

Which tells you something about the international community. Israel was trying not to kill civilians, once again, Hezbollah was (and they started the war). Cluster bombs again - because it's so uncharacteristic for Israel, and so rare, they get latched on to. Yes, they may have used them when they shouldn't have, it may even be a war crime. Again, everything that Hezbollah did (or tried to do - imagine if they were successful) was a war crime.

Yes, Israeli actions have (very, very rarely) been as bad as Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Hamas would do much worse (and will) if and when they can. Please comment: do you think they wouldn't?

I don't like to say this point, becuase it sounds like nonsense (frankly, like most everything Hamas defenders say, supported with links to Medialens), and because no one buys it: There are studies that show, when the Hamas fighters and suicide bombers are removed from those body counts (Palestinian sources include any possible dead person that could conceivalbly be called a civilian, including the suicide bombers themselves), that Israeli civilian deaths are higher. There are many reasons, including crappy Palestinian hospitals (blame the embezelled money) and Hamas enforced refusal to use Israeli ambulance or helicopters for medical evacuation. Plus, Israel doctors are fantastic.

Even if that weren't true, there is no moral need
respond to the disparity in the numbers: Hamas can't aim and has lousy weapons, too bad, even though they are TRYING to kill anything they can.

So, Rtambree, can you comment on Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally killing Israelis, indeed, as many as possible, and how they say, in speeches, declarations and their charter, that they will never make peace?

50. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47735 by howtoplayalone on June 5, 2007 at 11:36 am

There's a cycle of violence here, in which Israel is stooping just as lowly as the crazy and corrupt Palestinians.

I can't agree. Israel tried to make peace in 2000, Arafat left without a counteroffer even. And again, Palestinians try to kill Israeli civilians, and to me are therefore suspect on top of being murders for God.

And is it just self-defence?

Yeah, mostly.

The occupation of the west bank?

A necessary defense, taken from Jordan and Syria during a (second of three) defensive war. Gaza given back, along with the Sinai. WB ready, looking for partners in peace.

The hundreds of check points?

Against one life of an Israeli kindergardener? No contest. Most checkpoints came up after the Intifada in 2000.

The demolition of thousands of homes?

Thousands? Link please (and I can't buy Medialens, which actually attacks the Guardian for being pro-Isralei!)

The indefinite imprisonment of over 10,000?

I'm not sure about those numbers (link?), but there are lots of would-be-if-there-were-no-checkpoint terrorists in Palestine.

The nuclear arms in violation of international treaties?

After '48 and '67? You bet. Israel, unlike a nuclear Hamas, won't use them until threatened with its existence.

The giant wall in occupied land?

It's a fence in 95 percent, used to stop terrorists from entering (no fence until the 2000 intifada; after fence, very few successful terrorist bombs in sandwhich shops).

The denying of equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel?

Are you joking? They have more rights in Israel in any Arab country? Were not talking about the WB here, Israeli citizens? ten percent of parliment? a supreme court justice?

The building of settlements?

Yeah, those are very bad, I agree. Strike one for Israel.

The thousands of cluster bombs in southern Lebanon right before the armistice?

Those too. Strike two, but I'd compare that to Hezbollah's every action.

The rejection of numerous peace offers?

Name it, especially if it doesn't include five million new Palestinian citizens.

The long occupation of southern Lebanon?

Rotten, but they left and things got worse. You won't see them leaving the WB soon, because of what happened when they left Lebanon and Gaza.

The kidnappings?

Of terrorists.

Is this all self defence?

Most, yeah. Israel wants peace, and made a stunning offer in 200. Hamas refuses peace ever.

More Pages: 1 2 | Next