Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Essential Dishonesty of Christopher Hitchens

The article fails to mention Hitchens jewish heritage WHY? He venerates Trotsky; a coward and a villain. Take it form Justin Raimondo "Cowards, and liars, too. In the latest issue of The Atlantic, Hitchens reviews a reissue of Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of Leon Trotsky, which, we are told, is "sonorous and majestic," but no less so than its subject. Trotsky is glamorized by Hitchens as a literary icon and inspiration to such giants as Mary McCarthy, Norman Mailer, and the art critic Clement Greenberg: The founder of the Red Army, we are told, is the very embodiment of "defiance and dissent." I'll bet that isn't what they thought at Kronstadt, where dissent was felled by Trotsky's sword. Wasn't it Trotsky's Red Army that ruthlessly stamped out the very possibility of defiance in Soviet Russia? You have to be as dumb as a stump to believe that the much-feared prophet of "military communism" was anything other than a totalitarian, a Leninist, and a murderer" http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2824

Hitchens is an ardent zionist and apparently is too **** to mention his Israeli affection. Catholics are evil, Muslims are vile and Trostsky is a saint. He is an over rated critic who has found a safe financial haven in America's zionist community.

Why is he here in the USA? Why? a crude *** and a proponent for zionist mis-adventures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

There's also the stunning hypocrisy of his continuing hatred of Henry Kissinger for his actions in Southeast Asia, while advocating pretty much the same actions in Southwest Asia. Apparently policies that he otherwise considers vile crimes against humanity become suddenly acceptable when enacted on behalf of Israel. 64.13.232.33 07:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The implication here is that he is dishonest because of his "zionistic" perspective, is it? Based the on the preceding comments I would say that his beliefs about Israel leave him open to attack by people who hold prejudices against Jews. His beliefs come from cold logic applied to the instability of the middle east, rather than any religious or racial motivation. credit where credit is due. Nina 137.111.47.182 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Nina User:137.111.47.182: Also the severest criticism of the state of Israel has not even remotely anything to do with antisemitism. So criticising Hitchens for som of his more idiotic concepts does not make me an antisemit. Stop insulting people, Nina! Oalexander-En 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not anti-semitic then how could you explain your criticism for Hitchens on the grounds that he is pro-israel? If you have never read his criticism of Israel's occupation of parts of Palestine then you obviously should not have criticised him in the first place, having not bothered to research at all. If you had read them and ignored them then I would suggest you did so to discredit him disingenuously. The real insult here is either one of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Nina 137.111.47.182 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Hitchens suffers a bit from what might be termed Semitic chauvinism. But if that were his main motivation, wouldn't it soften his view of Kissinger? Just a thought. St. Jimmy 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)