@@askfaisalmuslim "With every 72 Virginia, they also get 72 mothers-in-law" suggests different. Admittedly it is a terrible joke but it gives the lie to your attempted correction. How did you miss something so obvious? Why not remark on the notion the "virgins" was a midtranslation and actually should have read "dried white grapes/raisins"?
@@garymorgan3314 how do you know it is a mistranslation though? Hear say or did you actually read the text? Because I can confirm there is nothing mentioned about 72 grapes?
@@askfaisalmuslim I heard it from an Arabic friend. Anyway why should I take you seriously when you denied a mother-in-law joke had been there in spite of there being one very clearly enunciated? If you can get something so easy wring you are not in a position to be trusted on literarally anything.
George has become so intoxicated by his crusade against 'all wrongs' that he has lost the plot. Listen to him now cheerleading the conspiracists for proof.
Here I think history has proven Hitchens wrong. Nothing lasting or worth the cost was achieved in Afghanistan. It is, or soon will be, pretty much the same as it was before the US invasion, among other things, a graveyard of empires.
Well said. I would also say that Hitchens should have known that the US today is not the US on yesterday, where we had the resolve to build democracy out of the rubble like we did in Japan and Germany.
@@farzanamughal5933 he seems annoyed by bill and his audience of seagulls. But I think the point that Al queda was truly a philosophical and fundamentalist global worldview and not a simple separatist group that can be reasoned with was at least valid
A few years prior to this debate , Hitchens was far left and was opposed to American involvement in the Middle East , what has happened that he is now so Conservative in his views .? A complete turnaround!!!
His atheism causing the disdain for the Islam in general ( obviously, it's a religion which hes against). Problem is hes supported another party thats guided by another big religion. It was and is foolish to think the USA does not act out of religious beliefs.
@@arikkatzenberg582 Wow , that’s a major amount of thinking involved to do such a complete u-turn from radical left to conservative. What information was involved to make such a major ideological shift as he did . Was it a St Paul Damascus moment ? Or more likely the realisation that the loony left he belonged to made no sense in the real world . Would love to hear more examples of ‘ thinking people ‘ changing their ideological stance having received more. ‘ information ‘ . Any Conservative ‘ thinking ‘ people become Woke lefties on learning the latest stuff about climate change , trans gender issues etc ???
@@S.Trades He never explained why he changed his mind , what new evidenced emerged ? As someone who made his living debating issues of the day ,he needed to have in depth detailed knowledge of the various subjects , yet he just changed his mind !!! Not acceptable !!!!
Can't agree with HItchens on this one, I'm more along the lines of Galloway in that there is a cause and effect and it does have to do with colonialism and the wests attitude towards the middle east as a cake they can just carve up. People don't like it when another country starts to throw its weight around in another part of the world. That and Bill Maher is just not funny.
Interesting spot. The cough sounds like any cough to me, but it is definitely interesting how much he wants to conceal and control it. It was something he was very conscious of
@@chrisbirch4150 I had the same cough, it was cancer, I was lucky and discovered my cancer very early, had my lung out and a full recovery without any chemotherapy after my operation, sadly Christopher wasn't as lucky
I'm Iranian and let me tell you this: Even though I agree with something Galloway says This guy is on everysingle State run media. He was on press Tv and I just saw him on RT(Russia owned station in English)
Ultimately Hitchens was a little short-sighted at the beginning with the "I think Bin Laden was one of a kind" comments, if he'd lived to see ISIS maybe he would've changed his opinion.
You’re looking at it in a different type of context. Hitler was one of a kind as well. Which is why he conquered Germany with a popular vote. The type of one of “don’t fuck around” kind of guy.
I am a big fan of Christopher but he was very wrong about 9/11, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The facts contradict him after his death. RIP Christopher.
Bin Ladens were from Yemen (southern). Oh, and they bailed out the Saudi royal family, so that they could continue to subjugate their people and steal billions.
@@jamesdettmann94 Philosophical bullshit. Either way I wasn't talking about good or evil. And there most certainly is good or bad in this context. So in summary, yes change can be for the better or for the worse.
Hitchens seems to be criticizing what he perceives to be Galloway’s hypocrisy more than his actual statements. Not his best day. Galloway is presenting a more useful, cogent argument. PS Maher is the worst😂
No, saying US created Bin Laden is like blaming the govt for a spy who went rogue. It is a cliched narrative that people like to jump on and blame their own govt for things that can’t be reverted rather than blaming actual freaking terrorists.
Hitchens anti-Islam stuff is a real mark against his name. He was so blinded by his distaste for Islam that he supported the illegal Iraq war. His argument was that it’s not-Islamophobic to criticise real and pervasive toxicities of Islam - but a stance like that makes it feel more ideological. I mean fuck George Galloway but Hitchens embarrasses himself on this topic every time by losing all objectivity and turning into his brother
@@AlvinBang Would you revise your statement now in light of what happened a week ago? Hitchens seems to be pretty much correct. Maybe we should listen to what they(Radical Islamists) tell us rather than what you think they want.
@@eaturcurry in fairness to Bill nobody is platforming Galloway any more. He’s too left and too objectively and demonstrably correct in his positions and arguments.
@@duderyandude9515 Hitchens was trying to paint a picture that Galloway somehow condoned Bin Laden. Galloway set the record straight. Hence the applause for him which annoyed Hitchens.
@@duderyandude9515 No one is right about everything but in this case he made a very good point. Hitchens tried to interpret things one way only but failed.
It’s a shame a lot of Christopher’s arguments were timely, and thus not as useful today. Then again, he has arguments that are Timeless. He was the rarest of birds. He’s missed!
Eh. He was alright. Had some good points every now and then, which he always expressed extremely eloquently winning himself a lot of less educated supporters enthralled by his skillful oratory, but was in so many ways a hypocrite and just so smug and grandstanding on so many occasions. I mean he even defended and downplayed waterboarding as a torture method until agreeing to get waterboarded himself. So yeh, intelligent man, great public speaker, did some solid journalistic work and had some good points here and there, but massively overrated in general.
@@Martoto94 You might have had the glimmering dust speck of a point if you hadn't shot yourself in the foot with the "less educated supporters" comment, snubbing the outpouring of respect and love for him by intellectuals such as Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, Ian McEwen, Richard Dawkins, and Douglas Brinkley.
@@CharlieQuartz I believe "less educated" here means not being knowledgable enough about the political and religious issues rather than possessing poor academic qualifications and on this ground his argument is hard to contest. One of Hitchen's pals Amis already disagreed with him on atheism, or on Hitchens instantiation of it. I believe he mentioned this in a talk regarding his latest book of essays. Krauss, Dawkins and Harris are not academically qualified to speak on theological matters (but I personally grant them liberty to converse on these matters) Consult any peer-reviewed journal and you won't find any reputable scholar trying to entertain their arguments and you can dispute this point by suggesting that they write for the public, but literature written for mass consumption has always had a space in these sorts of academic journals. Dawkins especially makes mistakes in his scholarship that deal serious injury to his arguments, the greatest example I can give concerns the Assyrians in his book Outgrowing God. A monumental misunderstanding of historical context places his opinions in serious jeopardy. Harris similarly fails to investigate the psychological impact of religious belief and from what I've researched, has published very little pertaining to his degree so exactly what use is his Ph.D in Neuroscience?. I have no idea of the work Rushide and McEwan have done so I won't comment, though I am familiar with them.
He was a drunk and fool playing court jester for vanity fair crowd. A sellout ex leftist with no moral compass, only cheap jokes and cheap snide quips.
@@puddintame6310 Nah. He was leftwing to his dying days. He was wrong about the Iraq war as we all know now and that was a sore point that divided him from his contemporary leftists.
They used to raid the Irish coast as well. They didn’t have a navy to see them off so many slaves were taken, many places ransacked. Arabs also began the slave trade! Mind you Western countries enslaved more from 18th century on.
@@garymorgan3314 slight exaggeration there. There were a few noted raids around the Cork coastline but wasn’t anything like the industrious slave trade practiced by various European groups after. Both were still wrong obviously.
@@sof553 That sounds fair SOF and I'm certainly no expert. You might appreciate the long overdue publication in Britain of ' Capitalism and Slavery' by Eric Williams. After a mere 80 years when Warburg spurned the chance. February 24th.
It was an Islamic attack. Read the diplomatic exchange when the US ambassador stated we were secular and not a Christian nation opposed to them. Being secular was also grounds according to the Koranfor attacking our ships said the Arab/ Islamic ambassador
It’s interesting that Hitchens was shown to be wrong yet people still talk about how he’s needed in some way. All of the examples he gives of us ‘helping’ countries didn’t help at all, in fact caused harm. He turned neo-con as a career choice. He knew there was way too much competition on the left and he wouldn’t stand out so he just made right-wing arguments like the nonsense about the pirates. Every country uses/or did use pretexts for violence. The west certainly does.
9/11 terrified him and turned him into a raging war criminal. Yet he can't understand the same dynamic applying to other countries. Being victimised by violence and terrorism fill you with rage and fear and makes you more predisposed to violence and terrorism.
Trying to find the full version of this and I note a lot of the deeply personal insults between Hitchens and Galloway are left out. Galloway really got to Hitchens when he reminded everyone Hitchen used to be a Marxist many years back and attacked George for being 'right -wing'. Galloway also got in a magnificent smack-down of Hitchen's for his drinking problem and the fact he is often drunk.
Galloway as of Feb 1st 2021 is allied with the Tories in opposing Scottish independence, showing how unprincipled he is. Hitchens remained a Trotskyite and his last words show him to be one even as he died he whispered "Capitalism....Downfall" his best friend Martin Amis reported. Amis is scrupulously honest. So you couldn't be more wrong: all Scots hate Galloway and that's quite a feat! Check it out, he's shown what students of him have long known: Galloway is completely unprincipled.
@@garymorgan3314 You take the good with the bad. George will always be remembered for his total demolition of the arrogant US politicians who thought they could out-debate him. I reminded of Enoch Powel. He was weird with his bonkers stare but a very clever sharp man who was always being interviewed by a journalist stupid enough to think they could get one over on him. He made complete fools out of the lot of them. Powel allowed himself to become fixated and it ruined his career. He would despise all the mouth-breathers who worship him but they are too dumb to care. I personally think all Nationalism is dangerous. Nothing worse than a flag-shagger running around looking for someone to fight to prove how patriotic they are. However The gammons let the genie out of the bottle and it looks like it is going to cost them billions to relocate their nuclear bases. Not going to go down well when they start storing nuclear waste in the Home Counties!
George Galloway is part and parcel of the "liberal West" in the following critique. _"The liberal West views the developing world, views Muslims and the developing world with contempt. By which I mean, they actually don't regard them as being properly human. To be properly human, it seems to me, is to take moral responsibility for your actions, to be held responsible. That is what, you know, that's one of the things that make us different from animals, our sense of moral responsibility. And the liberals in the West do not think that Muslims or anyone in the developing world has moral responsibility. They think that everything they do is explained by what's done to them. And consequently, it seems to me, you cannot get more profoundly racially prejudiced than that."_ - Melanie Phillips
Now with the perspective of current times you can see Galloway was closer to the truth and as much as I admired Hitchens view on religion he is acting as a total white imperialist here plus the discussion of the Iraq war and others as if there is justification for the atrocities committed on these countries by the west especially NATO stinks of arrogant elitism and superiority
It's called having an underdeveloped region full of folks with little to no opportunity compared to regions that, while part of the same country, are noticeably different in culture.
They were incorrect then as they are now. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's analysis of jihadist hatred for the West and 9/11 to get an accurate picture. Galloway is dangerously naive. ( his anti western rhetoric is also embarrassing and shameful.)
@@jasonhiggins6431 Jason, so why are you so fuc##ng interested. Why do you need to comment on it. This is not a competition. If your brains do not have any ability to understand the meaning of that Marketing Education tool I used in comment then best you shut your face.
Oh, how Maher has changed. The fairness in Islamic society does not exist. Global Islam would violate human rights and the morality of rationalists because not everyone wants to be muslim and discriminated against for not being one. The morality of individual rationalists and muslims is embedded in their ways of life because of their indigenous cultures, creativity and biases that makes them unique.
If you were to write down what Hitchens is saying, you could quite easily think they were words spoken by Mike Pompeo, Donald Rumsfeld, or Elliott Abrams.
You write "If you were to write down what Hitchens is saying, you could quite easily think they were words spoken by Mike Pompeo, Donald Rumsfeld, or Elliott Abrams."
yes - ruins his own show. I find this kind of show unwatchable. talking over the guests they invite on. it is insulting to the guest and infuriating the audience.
Both men are right in a lot of ways. I definitely don't think Hitchens would argue for the abolishment of the Iraqi state overnight by decree in Washington or the firing of every military men in the country. That's a recipe for disaster.
Damn, Hitch really fell off after 9/11. Galloway was 100% in his assessment. People are radicalized for a reason. The method is different and in this case religion was used (it’s being used and has been used in the US). The important thing is to step back and ask WHY is the situation in a way that radicalizes people. Hitch completely ignored the role of US & western imperialism throughout the Middle East that has plundered and exploited that region where there is no hope left.
@@conallmooney2457 that's the propaganda. Now look at the high civilization of Islam in Spain and Baghdad back in those enlightened times. Jews and Christians were living there in peace. So what's your point?
His little piece about the Barbary Wars is real hack stuff. You can't quote one letter from John Adams quoting one ambassador (in this case for Tripoli) in one meeting and assume it's even all that accurate, let alone that the ambassador is being serious (the same letter reveals he was happy to accept a large, personal bribe for signing a peace treaty); let alone that he speaks for Algiers, Morocco, Tunis or the Ottoman Empire as a whole over hundreds of years. Let alone going further to make a connection with 9/11. Ridiculous.
@@user-cp6rh7pf5hsorry, it's not propaganda. Islam has a history of aggression from the time it was founded in the 7th century. A few cases of medieval Spain or two hundred years of golden period means nothing. They have been the aggressors in the middle east, north Africa, Spain, central Asia, India. In our contemporary times, they are weak,, that's all..
@@PlayNiceFolks We know he did. Just check the receipts. The west gladly supporter the butcher of Baghdad. That doesn't mean that they were useful in 2003. They had expired.
The chap hosting this is pretty redundant and when he interjects he does it poorly. Three fascinating , intelligent, articulate guests with often juxtaposed positions but also with common ground should've been the discussion of the year.
Galloway on bin laden. At the time Russia was invading Afghanistan. Our war with Afghanistan was against terrorists not afghans. It went and operated quite differently. We didn't have a scorched earth policy there as Russia did.
@@kenq7948 America was also allied with Russia and Imperial Britain. Not to mention that they were silent with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan until they were dragged into war. Foreign policy is messy. An ally can become your enemy at the drop of a hat. That's just how the world works
I think that's a misrepresentation of Russia's Afghan intervention. Their aim was to try and stabilise the country, after a coup by pro-Soviet military officers and attempts to modernise and secularise had run into resistance from rural Afghans and threatened a civil war. They executed the 'modernising' leader and installed someone they felt could unify the country. Granted they were then more brutal than the US subsequently was, but a matter of degree rather than essence.
Hitchen's hatred of "Islamic fascism" (a very real thing) drove him to supporting America's illegal, unpopular, and horrific war against the sovereign nation of Iraq -- which, although an awful dictatorship, was a secular state opposed to Caliphate-seeking jihadists.
George Galloway doesn’t understand that a vast swathe of Muslims want to see a Muslim world and will do anything to achieve it. Hitchens doesn’t understand that the west has given them the fuel for their Islamic propaganda machine by conducting illegal wars in Iraq
What knots? The mere mention of the fact that it was Islam that started this fight, not the US, and that the Ottoman Empire initiated the conflict on explicitly theocratic grounds was more than enough to bury all of Galloway's bleating, ten times over.
@@godisbollocksOttomans were bullying everyone in middle ages just US is doing now ....in case you're unfamiliar with human history bullying is what superpowers do..
Galloway (who is a revolting individual and a traitor to the west) is on pretty firm ground when he cites Iraq and Palestine as useful recruiting tools for political Islam. By Hitchen's logic the war on terror should still be going on as muslims should still be trying to creat the caliphate and drive out western influence. This isn't happening, so factors other than Islamic doctrine are clearly pertinent. Hitchens biggest hatred was religous doctrine and it shows here at the expense of political nuance@@godisbollocks
George Galloway was so close to laughing at that mother in-law joke
Saved by the sip
You could say the mother of all jokes
Hahahaha in all his vitriol he can literally only crack a limp smile.
As close a Jupiter to Mars. That guy could not fart a grease BB.
Hitchens clearly isn't aware that the virgins are all orphans.
It’s like we are all having the same conversation over again
It's a cancer on the world that keeps coming back
@cpesq.5884 Zionism?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
We can't help ourselves, it's not wrong and it most certainly better than what's out there...why just react.
"With every 72 virgins, they also get 72 mothers in law"
Hitchens was fckng hilarious 😂😂😂
There are no 72 virgins that's fabricated hadeth everybody in Muslim community knows apparently idiots on internet are slow to catch up.
Not if some of them are sisters. Just sayin'.
@@theevilascotcompany9255Wisdom comes with age.
No he wasn't, he was not making a point either, he was only disrespectful.
@@MartinMaat y'all need to grow up and learn how to take a joke
I miss the days when real time had more than 2 guests at the table
Why are all three British?
Most guests now avoid his insufferable mug.
George doesn't find the mother-in-law joke funny!
It isn't really though, is it?
@@garymorgan3314 True it isn't funny, it is also incorrect, nothing is being mentioned about mother-in-laws.
@@askfaisalmuslim "With every 72 Virginia, they also get 72 mothers-in-law" suggests different. Admittedly it is a terrible joke but it gives the lie to your attempted correction.
How did you miss something so obvious? Why not remark on the notion the "virgins" was a midtranslation and actually should have read "dried white grapes/raisins"?
@@garymorgan3314 how do you know it is a mistranslation though? Hear say or did you actually read the text? Because I can confirm there is nothing mentioned about 72 grapes?
@@askfaisalmuslim I heard it from an Arabic friend. Anyway why should I take you seriously when you denied a mother-in-law joke had been there in spite of there being one very clearly enunciated?
If you can get something so easy wring you are not in a position to be trusted on literarally anything.
Mr. Hitchens is more needed nowadays than ever. RIP.
@@ChucklesMcGurk Wasn't proven right at all. Quite the opposite.
@@samconranyou find those weapons of mass destruction? They found them buried up your ass? Or was it just your head?
Hitchens is a tatcher lite knows everything from a distance a total clown 🤡
Surprising you write that under a video which captures him during his awful decline
George has become so intoxicated by his crusade against 'all wrongs' that he has lost the plot. Listen to him now cheerleading the conspiracists for proof.
Galloway is the master of Whataboutthis?, Whataboutthat ? And hence avoid the issue. Hitch always faced the issues head on . I miss him.
i have never seen such an idiot like hitchens.
Back when we had fascinating adversaries
I love Hitchens' smiling "I'm gonna rip your lungs out" look at the audience at 3:50
audience must be foolish from peaceful religion
BS
That's BS
He's so fun
Tells u how fucking ignorant people like you are and believe lies after lies
Weird how this was chosen since I just watched the 2000’s on CNN
😧😣😤😧😡😥😤😥
Can you upload the whole thing please?
Here I think history has proven Hitchens wrong. Nothing lasting or worth the cost was achieved in Afghanistan. It is, or soon will be, pretty much the same as it was before the US invasion, among other things, a graveyard of empires.
Well said. I would also say that Hitchens should have known that the US today is not the US on yesterday, where we had the resolve to build democracy out of the rubble like we did in Japan and Germany.
Graveyard of empires? All the empires that went into Afghanistan are still around.
No, it hasn't. Because it was actually Shiekh Abdullah Azzam who told Osama to go to Afghanistan, and he rejected any aid from the US.
@@anciagabe7804the British empire isn’t.
@anciagabe7804 The British empire, USSR and Mongol Empire don't exist anymore, do they?
Cheers, Hitch.
He sucks in this video
@@farzanamughal5933Go read a book, a real one.
@@farzanamughal5933 he’s ok in this video- his closing point is decent
@@JohnM-sw4sc No, by his closing point he is rattled
@@farzanamughal5933 he seems annoyed by bill and his audience of seagulls.
But I think the point that Al queda was truly a philosophical and fundamentalist global worldview and not a simple separatist group that can be reasoned with was at least valid
Wereis the full debate
Such a smart panel.
Good discussion.
A few years prior to this debate , Hitchens was far left and was opposed to American involvement in the Middle East , what has happened that he is now so Conservative in his views .? A complete turnaround!!!
His atheism causing the disdain for the Islam in general ( obviously, it's a religion which hes against). Problem is hes supported another party thats guided by another big religion. It was and is foolish to think the USA does not act out of religious beliefs.
That’s what thinking people do with new information
@@arikkatzenberg582 Wow , that’s a major amount of thinking involved to do such a complete u-turn from radical left to conservative. What information was involved to make such a major ideological shift as he did .
Was it a St Paul Damascus moment ? Or more likely the realisation that the loony left he belonged to made no sense in the real world . Would love to hear more examples of ‘ thinking people ‘ changing their ideological stance having received more. ‘ information ‘ . Any Conservative ‘ thinking ‘ people become Woke lefties on learning the latest stuff about climate change , trans gender issues etc ???
Can you criticise a man for changing his views? Lots of people change their minds.
@@S.Trades He never explained why he changed his mind , what new evidenced emerged ? As someone who made his living debating issues of the day ,he needed to have in depth detailed knowledge of the various subjects , yet he just changed his mind !!!
Not acceptable !!!!
Can't agree with HItchens on this one, I'm more along the lines of Galloway in that there is a cause and effect and it does have to do with colonialism and the wests attitude towards the middle east as a cake they can just carve up. People don't like it when another country starts to throw its weight around in another part of the world. That and Bill Maher is just not funny.
you're about as west centrist as the extremist right wingers you're complaining about. don't patronize the Muslim world.
Bill Maher was funny when he said "Well now I hate them. Thanks Chris"
With the passing of Christopher, the free world lost a great thinker. Will we ever see another Hitchens ever again? I seriously doubt it.
Douglass Murray
@@davehale2309 Douglas is no Hitchens, he's a shill for the corporations. Hitchens had no paymaster, that's what made him a truly free thinker.
Tim Nice but dim.
Coleman Hughes
@@_boringk6778 I'll give him a listen, thank you!
4:13 that cough, i remember it well, I was lucky,
R.I.P Christopher, i wish you'd had my luck
Interesting spot. The cough sounds like any cough to me, but it is definitely interesting how much he wants to conceal and control it. It was something he was very conscious of
@@chrisbirch4150 I had the same cough, it was cancer, I was lucky and discovered my cancer very early, had my lung out and a full recovery without any chemotherapy after my operation, sadly Christopher wasn't as lucky
I'm Iranian and let me tell you this:
Even though I agree with something Galloway says This guy is on everysingle State run media. He was on press Tv and I just saw him on RT(Russia owned station in English)
Galloway is a dickhead he only goes where the money is
you are iranian and why most of iranians hates islam or just dont believed it ??)))
The funny thing is that the term al-Qaeda is taken from the name of a city in Yemen
Why did the Shah of Iran send soldiers to Dhofar?
@@tagizademirasim The grip of the Mullahs on Iran is not what you think. It’s not a theocratic state.
I love Hitchens but I fully agree with Galloway on this one
Same.
The irresistible force against the immovable object.
Hitchens Was a gift to the world.
Hitchens also conveniently focused on Iraq when it was very well known that most of the so called hijackers where from Saudi Arabia. Not a word said.
Hitchens actively supported the invasion of Iraq
I thought they were from the CIA.
Only 15 of them were, and they weren't working for the Saudi Kingdom.
Islamic fundamentalism is more dangerous than ever
But it was known they were hiding in Iraq, you nincompoop
Ultimately Hitchens was a little short-sighted at the beginning with the "I think Bin Laden was one of a kind" comments, if he'd lived to see ISIS maybe he would've changed his opinion.
Nobody else attempted 9/11 type attacks i assume is what he meant...
If anything you can only say that with the benefit of hindsight.
You’re looking at it in a different type of context. Hitler was one of a kind as well. Which is why he conquered Germany with a popular vote. The type of one of “don’t fuck around” kind of guy.
ISIS are not remotely as well connected in international terms as Bin Laden was, so I’m not so sure you’d have seen him change his mind.
No way lol isis wouldn’t have come about with bin laden and al qaeda in the first place
@@dajossa1 Well if he meant that then that statement would just be tautologically true, in which case it offers nothing of value.
I am a big fan of Christopher but he was very wrong about 9/11, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The facts contradict him after his death. RIP Christopher.
Probably got slipped something nasty about this time, he looks healthy & a bit preoccupied. I will always love U HITCH, a real American!
The funny thing is that the term al-Qaeda is taken from the name of a city in Yemen
No it means the base
@@liamhirst5365 yes and the name of the city too
Weren’t the Bin Ladens emigres to Saudi from there? Just a thought.
Bin Ladens were from Yemen (southern). Oh, and they bailed out the Saudi royal family, so that they could continue to subjugate their people and steal billions.
@@ryand141 but rhe saudi support houthi
Bill Maher has changed
Yes, what's wrong with change? It's what we all do
He's a reactionary at best and court jester at worst. No integrity or values. Cheap man.
@@jamesdettmann94 Change isn't a garuanteed good though. Even if everyone changes, someone can change for the worse.
@@DaReaperZ there is no good or evil, only the natural process of change
@@jamesdettmann94 Philosophical bullshit. Either way I wasn't talking about good or evil. And there most certainly is good or bad in this context.
So in summary, yes change can be for the better or for the worse.
Hitchens seems to be criticizing what he perceives to be Galloway’s hypocrisy more than his actual statements. Not his best day. Galloway is presenting a more useful, cogent argument. PS Maher is the worst😂
100% agree 👍
Yeah he was definitely on the wrong side of history and the argument on this topic.
No, saying US created Bin Laden is like blaming the govt for a spy who went rogue. It is a cliched narrative that people like to jump on and blame their own govt for things that can’t be reverted rather than blaming actual freaking terrorists.
Hitchens anti-Islam stuff is a real mark against his name. He was so blinded by his distaste for Islam that he supported the illegal Iraq war. His argument was that it’s not-Islamophobic to criticise real and pervasive toxicities of Islam - but a stance like that makes it feel more ideological. I mean fuck George Galloway but Hitchens embarrasses himself on this topic every time by losing all objectivity and turning into his brother
@@AlvinBang
Would you revise your statement now in light of what happened a week ago?
Hitchens seems to be pretty much correct. Maybe we should listen to what they(Radical Islamists) tell us rather than what you think they want.
5:45 I didn't realise George Galloway of all people had said that first.
No, it's a phrase that goes back at least as far as the 1980s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drain_the_swamp
He wanted Rula Lenska to drain his whisky and cigar flavoured balls.
Anyone know what hitchens was referring to at 4:55 when he referenced the first Islamic attack (presumably on America?) occurring in 1788?
Something to do with enslaved American seamen in Tunisia. Jefferson ordered a naval brigade to confront and free the bastards
Merchant attacks from the Barbary states. They weren't specifically targeting US commerce, but all ships that weren't from known Islamic regions
@@danhooper3723 The US marines have a song about. It mentions the halls of Montezuma etc.
Back when you could still have a real debate about what’s going on
Seriously, now it all just blah blah blah no substance.
Back when bill Maher actually invited smart guests and wasn’t a right wing hack
@@eaturcurry in fairness to Bill nobody is platforming Galloway any more. He’s too left and too objectively and demonstrably correct in his positions and arguments.
@@eaturcurryExactly!
@eaturcurry why is Bill right Wing? Hes an imperialist and a Zionist. Beyond that he's primarily a hack.
Love to see I'm not alone looking back at these clips. Back when Bill Maher actually was interesting.
Did he say "drain the swamp?" at the end there??
George Galloway wins that round.
I think they both have good points.
@@duderyandude9515 Hitchens was trying to paint a picture that Galloway somehow condoned Bin Laden. Galloway set the record straight. Hence the applause for him which annoyed Hitchens.
@@dashong8912 I don’t think he was right about everything.
@@duderyandude9515 No one is right about everything but in this case he made a very good point. Hitchens tried to interpret things one way only but failed.
Galloway is a pig. And a nasty one.
It’s a shame a lot of Christopher’s arguments were timely, and thus not as useful today. Then again, he has arguments that are Timeless. He was the rarest of birds. He’s missed!
Eh. He was alright. Had some good points every now and then, which he always expressed extremely eloquently winning himself a lot of less educated supporters enthralled by his skillful oratory, but was in so many ways a hypocrite and just so smug and grandstanding on so many occasions. I mean he even defended and downplayed waterboarding as a torture method until agreeing to get waterboarded himself. So yeh, intelligent man, great public speaker, did some solid journalistic work and had some good points here and there, but massively overrated in general.
@@Martoto94 You might have had the glimmering dust speck of a point if you hadn't shot yourself in the foot with the "less educated supporters" comment, snubbing the outpouring of respect and love for him by intellectuals such as Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, Ian McEwen, Richard Dawkins, and Douglas Brinkley.
@@CharlieQuartz Indeed, and let’s not forget Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris.
@@CharlieQuartz Richard Dawkins is a sort of “pop” scientist he’s not an intellectual
@@CharlieQuartz I believe "less educated" here means not being knowledgable enough about the political and religious issues rather than possessing poor academic qualifications and on this ground his argument is hard to contest. One of Hitchen's pals Amis already disagreed with him on atheism, or on Hitchens instantiation of it. I believe he mentioned this in a talk regarding his latest book of essays.
Krauss, Dawkins and Harris are not academically qualified to speak on theological matters (but I personally grant them liberty to converse on these matters)
Consult any peer-reviewed journal and you won't find any reputable scholar trying to entertain their arguments and you can dispute this point by suggesting that they write for the public, but literature written for mass consumption has always had a space in these sorts of academic journals. Dawkins especially makes mistakes in his scholarship that deal serious injury to his arguments, the greatest example I can give concerns the Assyrians in his book Outgrowing God. A monumental misunderstanding of historical context places his opinions in serious jeopardy.
Harris similarly fails to investigate the psychological impact of religious belief and from what I've researched, has published very little pertaining to his degree so exactly what use is his Ph.D in Neuroscience?.
I have no idea of the work Rushide and McEwan have done so I won't comment, though I am familiar with them.
As much as I hate Galloway, it’s so important to listen to the ‘other side’
I feel you learn so much from these talks.
I feel vindicated that I always taught Hitchens was a war dog and yet he always spoke of religion as a driving force for all wars
Galloway reads it inside out, Hitchens it's what I say it is
Hitchens is smarter than Maher's entire staff of writers who write the words he says.
He was a drunk and fool playing court jester for vanity fair crowd. A sellout ex leftist with no moral compass, only cheap jokes and cheap snide quips.
Hitchens hated Kissinger but loved the neocons. Maybe not loved but they are criminals of the same range.
@@mingus4932 If he was an ex-leftist, he couldn't be that much of a fool.
@@puddintame6310 Nah. He was leftwing to his dying days. He was wrong about the Iraq war as we all know now and that was a sore point that divided him from his contemporary leftists.
@@mingus4932 And yet you are here whining about him? When he died millions cried. When you die not a soul will care...
When Hitchens mentions an Islamist Attack in 1788, is he referring to the Barbary Wars and the taking of Christian merchants as Slaves?
Also known as the white slave trade.
This aged well considering how they found those so called weapons of mass destruction
Have you read "the bomb in my garden"?
They removed a dictatorship and also all the major suppliers of nukes in the Middle East, black markets
4:50 Hitchens' is calling Algerian pirate attacks on an American ship in the Mediterranean the first Islamic attack on the US...
They used to raid the Irish coast as well. They didn’t have a navy to see them off so many slaves were taken, many places ransacked.
Arabs also began the slave trade!
Mind you Western countries enslaved more from 18th century on.
@@garymorgan3314 slight exaggeration there. There were a few noted raids around the Cork coastline but wasn’t anything like the industrious slave trade practiced by various European groups after. Both were still wrong obviously.
@@sof553 That sounds fair SOF and I'm certainly no expert.
You might appreciate the long overdue publication in Britain of ' Capitalism and Slavery' by Eric Williams. After a mere 80 years when Warburg spurned the chance. February 24th.
@@garymorgan3314 thanks for the suggestion I’ll look into it.
It was an Islamic attack. Read the diplomatic exchange when the US ambassador stated we were secular and not a Christian nation opposed to them.
Being secular was also grounds according to the Koranfor attacking our ships said the Arab/ Islamic ambassador
Thats two big minds locking horns together!
@0:49-1:07 This reminds me of Walt Kelly’s line: ‘we have met the enemy and he is us!’
It’s interesting that Hitchens was shown to be wrong yet people still talk about how he’s needed in some way.
All of the examples he gives of us ‘helping’ countries didn’t help at all, in fact caused harm.
He turned neo-con as a career choice. He knew there was way too much competition on the left and he wouldn’t stand out so he just made right-wing arguments like the nonsense about the pirates. Every country uses/or did use pretexts for violence. The west certainly does.
Oh dear. Delusion on display folks.
@@MattTheGunner What about your delusions? Perhaps you could enlighten us on those?
9/11 terrified him and turned him into a raging war criminal.
Yet he can't understand the same dynamic applying to other countries. Being victimised by violence and terrorism fill you with rage and fear and makes you more predisposed to violence and terrorism.
@@MattTheGunnerNot at all
The West is wrong when it:
Intervenes in Iraq
Partially intervenes in Libya
Doesn't intervene in Syria
Poor Bill is way out of his depth.
What was Galloway on about Florida??
Anti-castro Cubans who live in Miami
George Galloway wiped the floor with Hitchens in the Iraq debate they had.
Oh dear, no claps for Hitchens
Trying to find the full version of this and I note a lot of the deeply personal insults between Hitchens and Galloway are left out. Galloway really got to Hitchens when he reminded everyone Hitchen used to be a Marxist many years back and attacked George for being 'right -wing'. Galloway also got in a magnificent smack-down of Hitchen's for his drinking problem and the fact he is often drunk.
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nfplw
@@shookcitizen9065 You, sir, are a legend.
In case his comment ever gets deleted: www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nfplw
Galloway as of Feb 1st 2021 is allied with the Tories in opposing Scottish independence, showing how unprincipled he is. Hitchens remained a Trotskyite and his last words show him to be one even as he died he whispered "Capitalism....Downfall" his best friend Martin Amis reported. Amis is scrupulously honest.
So you couldn't be more wrong: all Scots hate Galloway and that's quite a feat!
Check it out, he's shown what students of him have long known: Galloway is completely unprincipled.
By "Right wing" Hitchens alluded to Galloway's Stalinism, as a dictator you can see why a follower could be seen as reactionary.
@@garymorgan3314 You take the good with the bad. George will always be remembered for his total demolition of the arrogant US politicians who thought they could out-debate him. I reminded of Enoch Powel. He was weird with his bonkers stare but a very clever sharp man who was always being interviewed by a journalist stupid enough to think they could get one over on him. He made complete fools out of the lot of them. Powel allowed himself to become fixated and it ruined his career. He would despise all the mouth-breathers who worship him but they are too dumb to care. I personally think all Nationalism is dangerous. Nothing worse than a flag-shagger running around looking for someone to fight to prove how patriotic they are. However The gammons let the genie out of the bottle and it looks like it is going to cost them billions to relocate their nuclear bases. Not going to go down well when they start storing nuclear waste in the Home Counties!
maher shows the quality of his intellect , by quoting bush , what a dick .
That was legendary at 2:02😂
Love Hitchens, he’s so needed right now.
No, he's so pro Zionist it's nauseating.
for what? babbling about being anti religion in a time where it’s last needed? he’s irrelevant and has nothing interesting to say
Nah, the guy was a smug loser with no morals..
I’ll give you one better. Galloway. And he’s just been re-elected
2:55 well, now ETA is in the spanish goverment...🤷♂️that worked out nicely 🤦🏻♂️
George Galloway is part and parcel of the "liberal West" in the following critique. _"The liberal West views the developing world, views Muslims and the developing world with contempt. By which I mean, they actually don't regard them as being properly human. To be properly human, it seems to me, is to take moral responsibility for your actions, to be held responsible. That is what, you know, that's one of the things that make us different from animals, our sense of moral responsibility. And the liberals in the West do not think that Muslims or anyone in the developing world has moral responsibility. They think that everything they do is explained by what's done to them. And consequently, it seems to me, you cannot get more profoundly racially prejudiced than that."_ - Melanie Phillips
Wonder where he is right now ?
Both men are actually right in many ways
Both are left.
@@ballerstalin5346 why, because he is saying things u dont want hear.
@@oninasrullah7757 both are left.
@@ballerstalin5346 not Hitchens. He was classic Liberal.
But one is warmongering.
Now with the perspective of current times you can see Galloway was closer to the truth and as much as I admired Hitchens view on religion he is acting as a total white imperialist here plus the discussion of the Iraq war and others as if there is justification for the atrocities committed on these countries by the west especially NATO stinks of arrogant elitism and superiority
You're babbling nonsense.
The difference in British and American humour
Hitchens makes a subtle dry joke
Maher has to verify to everyone “he’s making a joke!”
What a fantastic panel.
If Galloway was right, how do you explain outfits like Boko Haram?
The same way you explain groups like lords resistance army.
It's called having an underdeveloped region full of folks with little to no opportunity compared to regions that, while part of the same country, are noticeably different in culture.
The time that Bill Maher felt the need to interrupt up with stupid questions when smart man where talking. 😎
Bill Maher was lucky to be part of this debate
He is the worst presenter I have seen.
Galloway's argument have aged so much better
wised-up remark
Standing on the side of fascists and calling it just.
@@RikerLovesWorf you'll have to point me to the part where he does either
They were incorrect then as they are now. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's analysis of jihadist hatred for the West and 9/11 to get an accurate picture. Galloway is dangerously naive. ( his anti western rhetoric is also embarrassing and shameful.)
@@51gan788 he literally shills for Arab colonialists.
Im with the audience
You're an imbecile.
Good old hitch 72 mother in laws crack me up
Maher calls him Chris...that will never do
Geaorge galloway is tha only man that coukd hitch slap hitchens. Much love and respect to both.
When your up to your ass in Aligators, its good to remember that the object of the exercise was to Drain the Swamp!
Ummmm awkward Terry when after 10 days there’s still nobody telling you that’s a brilliant comment 😂😂😂
@@jasonhiggins6431
Jason, so why are you so fuc##ng interested.
Why do you need to comment on it.
This is not a competition.
If your brains do not have any ability to understand the meaning of that Marketing Education tool I used in comment then best you shut your face.
Clash of Titans...Katty also good...as is BM. Miss this stuff...and CH later admitted this was his biggest mistake. Thanks...!
When did Hitchens make that admission?
@@Wildfan-sg3fh Not sure...but it was in a TV interview. Must be able to search for it...will look.
Bill has always been a champion of the world's number one profession.
Hitchens' elegent to correct ratio does not align in the way we'd like to remember
Nag nag nag nag
Rest in Peace Hitch!!! ❤️
😂😂 what? He believes he has no soul 😂😂
@@ga4214 the Soul is the Essence of you
@@user-cp6rh7pf5hYou love the idea of someone being eternally tortured? I'd suggest you get some help as a matter of urgency.
No chance in his pitiful grave
@@ga4214I also don't believe in soul. There is no evidence of soul.
Philosophy vs reality.
Reality should win always
Oh, how Maher has changed. The fairness in Islamic society does not exist. Global Islam would violate human rights and the morality of rationalists because not everyone wants to be muslim and discriminated against for not being one. The morality of individual rationalists and muslims is embedded in their ways of life because of their indigenous cultures, creativity and biases that makes them unique.
If you were to write down what Hitchens is saying, you could quite easily think they were words spoken by Mike Pompeo, Donald Rumsfeld, or Elliott Abrams.
Ouch 😂
No. To group or generalise anything with your perceived polarised sense of what is totally evil is a sign of weak intellect and dumb woke extremism.
You write "If you were to write down what Hitchens is saying, you could quite easily think they were words spoken by Mike Pompeo, Donald Rumsfeld, or Elliott Abrams."
Mahyer is tying to get laughs. INFUCKINCREDIBLE .
yes - ruins his own show. I find this kind of show unwatchable. talking over the guests they invite on. it is insulting to the guest and infuriating the audience.
Maher is such a rube. Ah well. Not everyone ages gracefully.
Both men are right in a lot of ways. I definitely don't think Hitchens would argue for the abolishment of the Iraqi state overnight by decree in Washington or the firing of every military men in the country. That's a recipe for disaster.
1788? wtf ? really?
What don't you understand?
Hitchens is wit but in opposing Galloway’s point he seems quite shallow at it
Christopher Hitchens was so wrong on Afghanistan its untrue.In 2022 history has proved him almost childish.
How was he wrong?
It was a war who lasted 20 years with nothing to show for it. Thats the prove he was wrong.
@@mathiassvendsen6886 Yes my friend you are right.Chris Hitchens and co love someone else's children to fight their wars.
Maher called him 'Chris'. Not allowed!
Galloway you have pocketed bundles
Damn, Hitch really fell off after 9/11. Galloway was 100% in his assessment. People are radicalized for a reason. The method is different and in this case religion was used (it’s being used and has been used in the US). The important thing is to step back and ask WHY is the situation in a way that radicalizes people. Hitch completely ignored the role of US & western imperialism throughout the Middle East that has plundered and exploited that region where there is no hope left.
Read shadow wars bro.
Unfortunately you miss the point. Islam demands complete submission of everyome and eberythimg to it.
@@conallmooney2457 that's the propaganda. Now look at the high civilization of Islam in Spain and Baghdad back in those enlightened times. Jews and Christians were living there in peace. So what's your point?
His little piece about the Barbary Wars is real hack stuff. You can't quote one letter from John Adams quoting one ambassador (in this case for Tripoli) in one meeting and assume it's even all that accurate, let alone that the ambassador is being serious (the same letter reveals he was happy to accept a large, personal bribe for signing a peace treaty); let alone that he speaks for Algiers, Morocco, Tunis or the Ottoman Empire as a whole over hundreds of years. Let alone going further to make a connection with 9/11. Ridiculous.
@@user-cp6rh7pf5hsorry, it's not propaganda. Islam has a history of aggression from the time it was founded in the 7th century. A few cases of medieval Spain or two hundred years of golden period means nothing.
They have been the aggressors in the middle east, north Africa, Spain, central Asia, India. In our contemporary times, they are weak,, that's all..
I love Hitchens, but Galloway actually owns him and is proven right.
what nonsense
@@nad1ax2 same to you.
💯
Islam has waged war against Christians for 1500 years.
Proven right that Western intervention is the root cause of Islamic fundamentalism? Uhhh, I think not.
Back when there were better panels
I wonder if Christopher Hitchens would have gone full woke or right wing.
This that thing Hitchens was horribly, tragically wrong about!
I'll bet you also think that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons after the 90s.
@@PlayNiceFolks You bet that he reckons that, Jaron.
Given Hitch's stubborness and unflinching conviction he probably would have found a way to double down, dress it in wit and sell it off to folks.
@@PlayNiceFolks We know he did. Just check the receipts. The west gladly supporter the butcher of Baghdad. That doesn't mean that they were useful in 2003. They had expired.
@@Hirnlego999
They were inert?
Galloway is throwing a lot of shade for terrorists. He'd be right at home today spouting his apologist nonsense.
The chap hosting this is pretty redundant and when he interjects he does it poorly. Three fascinating , intelligent, articulate guests with often juxtaposed positions but also with common ground should've been the discussion of the year.
the one lesson here is that no matter what happens, americans will never learn from history.
like a lot of free thinkers i suffer from hitchins worship, but he was wrong about many things and not as logical as i would like
Galloway on bin laden. At the time Russia was invading Afghanistan. Our war with Afghanistan was against terrorists not afghans. It went and operated quite differently. We didn't have a scorched earth policy there as Russia did.
Galloway is saying that America supported Bin Laden against the Russians. America created the monster.
@@kenq7948 America was also allied with Russia and Imperial Britain.
Not to mention that they were silent with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan until they were dragged into war.
Foreign policy is messy. An ally can become your enemy at the drop of a hat. That's just how the world works
@@4realjacob637 Lets not get started on a list of the monsters around the world America has created and/or supported. I don't have all night
I think that's a misrepresentation of Russia's Afghan intervention. Their aim was to try and stabilise the country, after a coup by pro-Soviet military officers and attempts to modernise and secularise had run into resistance from rural Afghans and threatened a civil war. They executed the 'modernising' leader and installed someone they felt could unify the country. Granted they were then more brutal than the US subsequently was, but a matter of degree rather than essence.
But as Hitch says, Galloway didn't oppose that intervention, which was as damaging as the US invasions have been.
Hitchen's hatred of "Islamic fascism" (a very real thing) drove him to supporting America's illegal, unpopular, and horrific war against the sovereign nation of Iraq -- which, although an awful dictatorship, was a secular state opposed to Caliphate-seeking jihadists.
no he also didnt like saddam
when bush said "where are on a crusade, you knew that we are fucked, so long we have religions we do not see peace
The point when Hitchens had truly lost it. Galloway speaking sense here, and Hitchens acting like a child.
other way around
@@handsomelyditto4215You should hear what they are saying instead of just paying attention to the joke
George Galloway doesn’t understand that a vast swathe of Muslims want to see a Muslim world and will do anything to achieve it. Hitchens doesn’t understand that the west has given them the fuel for their Islamic propaganda machine by conducting illegal wars in Iraq
Hitchens was a master at destroying religious superstition but he ties himself in knots on politics,as exposed here by a man not fit to wipe his shoes
What knots? The mere mention of the fact that it was Islam that started this fight, not the US, and that the Ottoman Empire initiated the conflict on explicitly theocratic grounds was more than enough to bury all of Galloway's bleating, ten times over.
@@godisbollocksOttomans were bullying everyone in middle ages just US is doing now ....in case you're unfamiliar with human history bullying is what superpowers do..
Agreed. Only people who agree with Hitchens are the ones who never took the time to study Islam or get to know Muslims or live in in a Muslim country.
Galloway (who is a revolting individual and a traitor to the west) is on pretty firm ground when he cites Iraq and Palestine as useful recruiting tools for political Islam.
By Hitchen's logic the war on terror should still be going on as muslims should still be trying to creat the caliphate and drive out western influence. This isn't happening, so factors other than Islamic doctrine are clearly pertinent. Hitchens biggest hatred was religous doctrine and it shows here at the expense of political nuance@@godisbollocks
Mr Galloway can not only wipe his own shoes, he can wipe the floor with people like hitchens or mahers etc.