I'll still never get over the fact that Maher said he thought Milo Yiannoncolous reminded him of a young Hitchens.... some people completely lose all sense of perspective as soon as they hear a posh boy speak.
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.
@@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.
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.
Actually, he was correct on Iraq. However, not for the reasons the Bush administration went in for: the mostly falsified story of weapons of mass destruction. He wanted the UN go in due to Iraqs many human rights and Geneva Convention abuses. They were a country, not protected by a nuclear power so you could remove them with superior force. The entirety of the United Nations, by the very words of the charter compelled them to remove the Saddam government. I agree that the US has made many foreign policy mistakes (the Gulf of Tonkin for example). But for the UN not to act at the time was sickening. But the US’ complete mismanagement of the eventual war was also a massive problem. However, the reason Hitchens demanded the removal of Saddam was in fact, correct. He was for the UN acting, much as they did during the Korean War.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@hestereeen164 So were many including most of the civilian population of the US. People have misconceptions about Hitchens apparent support of the iraq war. Its easy to forget about how disgusting Hussain regime was in the events since 2003. Hitchens supported an apparent forceful attempt to remove hussain from power along with his mentalist friends but he did not agree to how the usa (nor the few allies) who helped them in their attempt chose then to carry out that conflict which was not merely a following of knockout strikes on the Iraqi Ba'athist loyalists but instead a full scale invasion and subsequent lengthy occupation period. Hitchens seemingly - though i have to read into a bit more to say precisely - wanted to see a simple change in leadership in iraq. Hitchens died at the closure of the iraq war in 2011 and further had not lived to observe iraq raping by IS affiliates nor the subsequent governments that have followed in the the last decade. This was not meant to be such a waffle but oh well
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)
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.
I'm a secular myself, but what i find funny was the lack of argument coming out of hitchens when galloway started to speak about the horrors of imperialism and the whole "the water they swim in" talk. Galloway rightfully and correctly brings up how imperialism in the mid east was a linchpin to the increase of extremist terrorism to which hitchens returns with the most atheistic non-human way ever of "The terrorist believe infidels and women are slaves" in his reply to galloway, on why the increase in terrorism is indeed a thing that succumbed through land theft and destruction by imperial powers. Hitchens just casually reverted back to atheistic talking points, the man really tried to criticize religion by lumping in everyone of the faith.
Hitchins is compelling and provacative on many issues. Hes glib but Galloway is in much better in command of the material facts and historical trends. Hitchins generalizes his righteous opposition to religious zealotry to much more complex geopolitical and political economy issues and badly obscures understanding. He clouds rather than clatifies. He looks very bad here in retrospect. His rhetorical excellence masks his inadequate analysis, but a more granular assessment reveals his flaws.
Hitchens point is fundamentalism of islam has nothing to do with "imperial powers" giving them water to swim in. The muslim world was once a beacon of civilization and scientific understanding until early sharia law and religious fundamentalism began to take over and they devolved into a backwards fundamentalist society they are now. This happened well before the US even existed. Unless you address the religion youll always have the terrorist organizations commiting acts on foreign soil around the globe because to the majority of muslims they are holy men doing allahs work killing infidels. They put them selves back in the dark ages with their religion and everyone wants to make excuses for them rather then admit religion is the problem.
@@doc-holliday- The MUSLIM world was a beacon of civilization and scientific understanding until early sharia law..." Ok bud. So there was a Muslim World without sharia? And the Muslim were so great until their religion go in the way?! The Muslim world was at the forefront when they were at their most religious. Medievl Baghdad was the most impress city in the pre-modern world at the same time Muslim orthodoxy was being cemented. Baghdad had a Caliph, who was a direct decendant of Muhammad, they had an army filled with men who believed they were carrying on the Jihad etc.
@@blackphillip564 What a load of horseshit bud lol. They are at their most religious right now. That's why they lived in the darkages for centuries. Were they religious before? Obviously I wasn't saying they weren't. But the backwards religious fundamental anti science anti intellectual sharia law we know today wasn't introduced until most of the muslim kingdoms were conquered by the ottomans. Much bigger religious fanatics who went on to codify sharia law. That was the end of most of the muslims being at the forefront of scientific advancement and understanding. Now all you have to do is read sharia law to understand how it is completely antithetical to science/logic/intellectualism just like almost every other religion. The only difference is the middle east is completely filled with religious fanatics who still believe in virtually every word of it while most of the rest of the world has managed to push their religions into much smaller roles. It's hilarious how anyone can even question the idea that religious fundamentalism isn't completely responsible for the pathetic state of the middle east. It has a virtual stranglehold over almost every muslim country. Even in the west religion is a constant impediment to science and reason and it has much less sway. When the muslim world gets tired of their religion run governments only then will they be able to find a place back with the rest of modern society. Until then they will continue to be backwards extremist breeding grounds blaming everyone else for their problems.
i mean that's wonderful and all, but, hitchens didn't say ''the increase of terrorism is because they all believe every woman is a slave.''. Nice try, but i have ears.
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.
I don't understand how we have got to a point where people still defend Galloway's position on this. I have my differences with Hitchens on a lot, but he was right on this.
@@sacred1827 No I probably won't. Western masochism will always be anathema to me, and isolationism unfortunately won out in the end. We're in the midst of the results.
@@sacred1827 Of course. The West withdrew from Iraq far too early, and then refused to intervene in a meaningful way in Syria, and allowed Russia to chip away at Eastern Europe and run the FSB rampantly through our streets. We did nothing to stem the Iranian Revolution and its expansion by proxy. But it's not just about military, we also started to withdraw from/grow sceptical of institutions (NATO, the Pacific partnerships, etc.). And look at the result. Russia emboldened to the point they started a fully fledged invasion. Iran emboldened and launching pogroms against Israel among other endeavours. And China gaining momentum in the region as well as Africa. Mistakes have been made but the liberal democratic world order is not a given. It needs constant defence and support worldwide and isolationism is its enemy.
@@samconranlol the typical type of pseudo alpha male armchair critic keyboard warrior you find on TH-cam. How about we focus on fixing our problems within USA before trying to play world police little man 😂😂😂
@@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.
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.
@@Heprishencesorry, 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..
@@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.
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.)
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 !!!!
I see no reason for such strong feelings about Galloway. He is a man who bothers to inform himself, and even if you disagree with some of what he says, his contributions are certainly not based on ignorance.
I think Galloway got the better of Hitchens. He got under his skin because he is as articulate and has the one liners like himself. Hitchens doesn't seem to like anyone other than himself get applause from the audience the ego of the man just can't take it. Hitchens was a smart well spoken man, but he never seemed to listen to anybody else's views rather he loves to spout the smart one liners for effect on many chat shows and to massage his inflated ego.
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
@@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.
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!
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 know, the indoctrinated self-loathing of the modern western man is his worst problem. Y'all will tremble with rage upon ''white imperialism'' but when muslims blow up our cities the tone changes to ''perhaps we ought to reconsider ourselves''. It truly is pathetic, stupid and above all submissive.
Got to agree to a point. Even the point about Bin Laden, was right. Hitchens made out it was nonsense, yet he was funded by the cia against The soviets.
Yep hitchens morphed into a neocon when confronted with Islam Muslims or just war in general... It's bizarre and terrifying to think that someone that we all admire would be so wrong on this singular issue
Hitch was a lightweight lol he is 100% more intelluctual than galloway and his books are legendary. If you dont agree with him about iraq it doesnt mean you have to disrepect him like that.
No he wasnt. Fundamentalist islam is the problem and it will never be solved until people admit it. All galloway was doi g was maki g excuses for the conduct of religious Fundamentalist and hitchens was saying they will always have an excuse, which is exactly right. These are the same people killing people over cartoons, but tell me more about how its everyone elses fault for turning the muslim world into a backwater of civilization hundreds of years before the us even existed.
The problem is the people who hate Galloway can not shake of their prejudice. Hitchens was a clever debater just this time he met someone just as good and in this case better. It may be there are other meetings where Hitchens came out on top but this is definitely not one of them
@@michaelkenny8540 Mr Galloway has a habit of putting points across via poetry which makes him look good but remove that and then he is lacklustre. It also doesn’t help Bills audience applauding anything. Do you really buy Mr Galloways statement that the USA created bin laden?
@@christopherhitchens163 I get you're trolling. but on the 0.001% chance you're not: it's declassified: the CIA supplied money and arms to bin laden to hold off the russian invasion.
I admired Hitchens in the 90's but something strange happened to him after 9/11. Looking back now its clear he couldn't have been more wrong re the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. Can't help wondering if all the alcohol he was drinking did something to his brain. Such an intellect and yet so entirely wrong about Iraq.
Though I am a Muslim, but I admire Hitchens' personality, ability to debate and of course his voice and his brother's voice too which sounds the same for some point, but the thing is that this what happens when you are far away from the epicenter of the struggle...Hitchens depends on the eradication of religious fundamentalists, radical and fanatic muslims...But the story is that he was too blind to see how it would turn out in the hands of the US government, everybody prior to the invasion was against a war in the middle east, another interference would definitely cause more trouble because you can't implement democracy to an illiterate society, and that is what happened, the US was not able to reform stability in the region while searching for there interest, and you know the drill...Hitchens was blindfolded by his anti religious background, simply he is inadequate to speak about the politics of the middle east
Yeah there was definitely something going on toward the end, though I'm obviously not qualified to say what exactly. This quote didn't get much attention at the time but it speaks volumes about where Hitch's head was at in the early oughts- ""Watching the towers fall in New York, with civilians incinerated on the planes and in the buildings, I felt something that I couldn’t analyze at first and didn't fully grasp (partly because I was far from my family in Washington, who had a very grueling day) until the day itself was nearly over. I am only slightly embarrassed to tell you that this was a feeling of exhilaration. Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose. A pity that we let them pick the time and place of the challenge, but we can and we will make up for that." Edit: there would have of course been the financial incentives to consider as well, but if we take the above quote at all seriously, there was clearly a pathological side to his reasoning.
@@HaplessHypnagogic Christopher's (and Peter's) father was a naval officer. Have you considered the possibility that something was going on from the beginning rather than the end? Journalists with immediate family connections to the military is a red flag in my book. For someone as apparently smart as Christopher, or Peter, to not know the real history as Galloway was alluding to here (the British influence in the region going back a century in particular), is just preposterous. They know. They're just operating on the assumption that the viewer won't.
@@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.
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."
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
@@eVieww Maher is a child on Israel / Palestine And he focuses on rightwing talking points about cultural wars when voting rights, the effort to try to cancel the whole damn election are vastly more important. And when he used to speak in favor of healthcare for all he chickened out as soon as there was a chance for Sanders getting elected.
@@Hirnlego999 you're just listing left wing talking points that don't amount to much, unless you are like one of those people in that video that shows left wingers think minorities can't register (found it! th-cam.com/video/3JGmKHrWKMQ/w-d-xo.html)
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.
@@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
Summarising the half century Israeli-Palestine issues to “evacuating Gaza” was his usual deliberate deceit on an issue in question. A lot of his nonsense was well spoken slight of hand and profound sounding moving of goal posts or reframing an issue provocatively.
It was not a “half century of Israel-Palestine issues.” It was an Arab campaign of genocide which principally started in 1937 when the then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem announced a bounty on the head of every Jew. Thirteen different Arab states participated in the various Arab invasions of Israel, and were supported by the Soviet Union and other communist states.
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.
He wasn't a war dog, he was vehemently opposed to militant Islam and all totalitarian regimes, also thought Hussein had WMD, a chokehold on major world oil supplies and that retaliation intervention in the middle east was a NATO imperative
These folks couldn't be more wrong about Al Qaeda not having demands. Their primary demand was for the withdrawal of all U.S. and other western troops out of Saudi Arabia, and by proxy out of Mecca. That's it. That was their demand but we ignored it. Therefore AQ started a campaign of violence with bombings in Riyadh then Khobar towers, the U.S.S. Cole, bombing the WTC and so on. They predictably ramped up their attacks against the U.S. while we predictably stayed put until 9/11 when they finally got their way. As soon as the towers fell we were pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia and planting them in the surrounding countries for Bush's bullshit war with Iraq.
Demand No1. Leave us alone to grow the poppies....or is that the Taliban? So many different names I've lost count. What happened to the mujahideen? Now it's Isis.
That's not true. In Bin Laden's " letter to America" he outlined the terms of our surrender and the reasons he was fighting us in the first place. He citer the quran as justification for his war on the infidels. He said the first thing we had to do to stop him from attacking was to renounce all other religions, renounce the Constitution and convert to islam and live by Sharia law. Stop supporting Israel and leave everywhere else was an afterthought. This attack was sanctioned by the quran, islam has been attacking everyone else for 1400 years, long before Bush, long before the USA, long before troops in Saudi Arabia.It's the words in the quran that dd this, not troops in Saudi Arabia.
@@highlightrelz897 Silly little Ben was batting way out of his league when he insulted Sam Harris. And George Galloway was business buddies with Saddam Hussein's deranged psychotic sun Udy, and made a lot of money together with that rapist. Think about that. Galloway is a 5th column Islamist traitor. Hitchens owned him.
You've obviously not seen his sycophantic interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, later he defended the Iranian leader's execution of gays by swallowing whole the obviously lie that one was an alleged criminal. It's best not to judge Galloway on Iraq where he was right, since on the Soviet Union and Iran and other enemies of the USA the enemies of his enemies are invariably his friends and wise he certainly is not.
@@garymorgan3314 Doesn't matter. We cannot kill them all to "save them". If my neighbour likes to beat his wife, do i firebomb their house hurting them all?
@@blackphillip564 Not exactly news to me BS.. I pointed out the very thing: Trotsky drserves no-one's praise ...except as a brilliant writer on post WW3 Germany. He almost preferred Luxemboug, a far better person. .
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
@Azoria4 If you get what I'm saying he's a good debater. I don't even agree with some of what he says and Galloway. Galloway is good too but it's all backing up terrorists and organisations. Some is right and some isn't but Hitchens is more interesting could watch him longer . Your lack of awareness is that I have an opinion so try not to be too clever cheers.
Disappointing to hear a man of Hitchens learning, a long term supporter of the Palestinian cause of self determination, talking about “helping Israeli’s evacuate Gaza’ as if it was a benign and altruistic gesture, when in fact, it was based on growing international condemnation that increasingly Israel itself couldn’t justify and led to the incarceration of Gaza ever since by the occupation and control of all land, sea and air borders. Galloway is spot on by suggesting the only way to starve Al Qaeda and it’s like is for the west to become an honest broker in the region, stop its support of Israel’s occupation and establish a fully independent state of Palestine on the 67 borders. This, alongside other policies that undermine fairness and international justice must be at the heart of western and indeed global policy to redeem ourselves amongst the Arab people.
Islam was part of the western policy to do that to the region. Make sure to add that. And why is this region not up in arms about Kurds and just Palestinians? Gosh, I wonder why
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.
I prefer Hitchens to Galloway as Galloway chops and changes who he wants to suck upto and will keep him relevant but Hitchens was more wrong on this situation , although George knows what causes to fight for and sides to take which will make him look good .
Not really: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is Galloways m.o. and that enemy is America. Hence Galloway’s Stalinist sympathies, his unnecessary lauding of Saddam; the craven interview with Ahmadinejad in 2010 ...Galloway is not to be trusted. Here’s he’s right, but a stopped clock looks right twice a day. Yugoslavia would have become greater Serbia had Galloway had his way and Sierra Leone ruled by gangsters with ghastly Charles Taylor ruling Liberia. Caveat spectator always with Galloway, a nasty piece of work.
@@garymorgan3314 I totally agree with that on Galloway he is a snake, prime example is right now Galloway said he would want someone to kill him if he ever joined forces with the conservatives in Britain , he's now voting for them this election to stop his own country from Becoming independent (Scotland )
@@lfc200506 Indeed yes and we Galloway watchers are of course not remotely surprised. Americans tend not to know this and imagine the Scot is principled and wise. If only they knew.... Cheers
Yep. I love Hitch, especially on religion, but there's no denying that living in America and being immersed in American propaganda 24/7 for so many years did skew his political thought.
I remember that neocon pro-war sentiment at the time was so prevalent that it was difficult to not get caught up in that hoopla. I was so disappointed to see Hitchens fall for it, which only served to grow my respect for Galloway at the time. It could not have been easy to go against the grain like he did but he stuck to his guns. And here we are two decades later and he's the one whose views aged well, not Hitchens.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 No disrespect intended to the innocents who died, but I still have trouble seeing "9/11" as anything other than America getting one taste on its home turf of the kind of destruction, horror, and civilian death that it cheerfully inflicts on other faraway countries on a regular basis.
Why? It's not as if Hitchens was one thus why commend someone for using a word than a well-read person should know! Unless you think it really IS that recherche....like recherche!
@@charlieparkeris I tend not to obey peremptory requests. If you can provide a reason. Can't see one. Unless you'd like to laud "peremptory" of course!
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.
Essentially, like a woman that is the victim of domestic abuse, George Galloway makes excuses for our abusers, we brought it on ourselves, If only we had acted differently we wouldn’t have angered the abuser, it’s not the abusers fault that he’s violent, it’s our fault for angering him. no matter how many times the victim appeases the abuser, the abuser will always find a way to justify another beating, for some perceived or concocted transgression.
15 years after the debate I think we can say with certainty that Hitchens got the big picture right. After the events since that debate you cannot possibly argue that the US Iraq adventure is responsible for global jihad.
Right? You fight terrorism with intelligence and police work mainly. Not with armies, which is counterproductive. www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html Clearly western imperialism also is tied to religious fanatics getting power, the west tends to gladly support secular dictatorships as long as they are willingly selling themselves.
@@mathiassvendsen6886 He also supported Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, its bombing of Syria, its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the current onslaught in Ukraine. George Galloway is not antiwar, he just supports the other side.
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.
"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'll still never get over the fact that Maher said he thought Milo Yiannoncolous reminded him of a young Hitchens.... some people completely lose all sense of perspective as soon as they hear a posh boy speak.
Maher is a moron.
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.
he supported palestinian resistance btw
Mr. Hitchens is more needed nowadays than ever. RIP.
@solomongrundy145 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.
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.
3 guests was way better 👍
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.
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.
Back when we had fascinating adversaries
Hitchens was great but he lost his way seriously on Iraq because he couldn't see past his hatred of religion.
People
@@ayrramadan8819 Do you mean to say that Hitchens actually hated people and veiled it has hatred of religion?
@@RaisonDetre96 😉
His debate vs Michael Parenti didn't go well either for Hitch.
Actually, he was correct on Iraq. However, not for the reasons the Bush administration went in for: the mostly falsified story of weapons of mass destruction.
He wanted the UN go in due to Iraqs many human rights and Geneva Convention abuses. They were a country, not protected by a nuclear power so you could remove them with superior force. The entirety of the United Nations, by the very words of the charter compelled them to remove the Saddam government. I agree that the US has made many foreign policy mistakes (the Gulf of Tonkin for example). But for the UN not to act at the time was sickening. But the US’ complete mismanagement of the eventual war was also a massive problem.
However, the reason Hitchens demanded the removal of Saddam was in fact, correct. He was for the UN acting, much as they did during the Korean War.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
Weird how this was chosen since I just watched the 2000’s on CNN
😧😣😤😧😡😥😤😥
It’s not often you see an opponent worthy of Hitchens. Galloway can hold his own.
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.
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!
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.
Love hitchens but he was dead wrong about Iraq
@@hestereeen164 So were many including most of the civilian population of the US. People have misconceptions about Hitchens apparent support of the iraq war. Its easy to forget about how disgusting Hussain regime was in the events since 2003. Hitchens supported an apparent forceful attempt to remove hussain from power along with his mentalist friends but he did not agree to how the usa (nor the few allies) who helped them in their attempt chose then to carry out that conflict which was not merely a following of knockout strikes on the Iraqi Ba'athist loyalists but instead a full scale invasion and subsequent lengthy occupation period. Hitchens seemingly - though i have to read into a bit more to say precisely - wanted to see a simple change in leadership in iraq. Hitchens died at the closure of the iraq war in 2011 and further had not lived to observe iraq raping by IS affiliates nor the subsequent governments that have followed in the the last decade. This was not meant to be such a waffle but oh well
@@hestereeen164but not about Islam
But Galloway was right. Invading Iraq led to MORE terrorism against the West not less. Of course it did.
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 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.
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
@@tintin1265really he thinks the entire concept of the isreali state is one of the most stupid things in human history.
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.
He wasn't wrong about the Taliban, he was just wrong about the ability of the US to actually achieve their goals in Afghanistan.
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
I'm a secular myself, but what i find funny was the lack of argument coming out of hitchens when galloway started to speak about the horrors of imperialism and the whole "the water they swim in" talk. Galloway rightfully and correctly brings up how imperialism in the mid east was a linchpin to the increase of extremist terrorism to which hitchens returns with the most atheistic non-human way ever of "The terrorist believe infidels and women are slaves" in his reply to galloway, on why the increase in terrorism is indeed a thing that succumbed through land theft and destruction by imperial powers.
Hitchens just casually reverted back to atheistic talking points, the man really tried to criticize religion by lumping in everyone of the faith.
Hitchins is compelling and provacative on many issues. Hes glib but Galloway is in much better in command of the material facts and historical trends. Hitchins generalizes his righteous opposition to religious zealotry to much more complex geopolitical and political economy issues and badly obscures understanding. He clouds rather than clatifies. He looks very bad here in retrospect. His rhetorical excellence masks his inadequate analysis, but a more granular assessment reveals his flaws.
Hitchens point is fundamentalism of islam has nothing to do with "imperial powers" giving them water to swim in. The muslim world was once a beacon of civilization and scientific understanding until early sharia law and religious fundamentalism began to take over and they devolved into a backwards fundamentalist society they are now. This happened well before the US even existed. Unless you address the religion youll always have the terrorist organizations commiting acts on foreign soil around the globe because to the majority of muslims they are holy men doing allahs work killing infidels. They put them selves back in the dark ages with their religion and everyone wants to make excuses for them rather then admit religion is the problem.
@@doc-holliday- The MUSLIM world was a beacon of civilization and scientific understanding until early sharia law..." Ok bud. So there was a Muslim World without sharia? And the Muslim were so great until their religion go in the way?! The Muslim world was at the forefront when they were at their most religious. Medievl Baghdad was the most impress city in the pre-modern world at the same time Muslim orthodoxy was being cemented. Baghdad had a Caliph, who was a direct decendant of Muhammad, they had an army filled with men who believed they were carrying on the Jihad etc.
@@blackphillip564 What a load of horseshit bud lol. They are at their most religious right now. That's why they lived in the darkages for centuries. Were they religious before? Obviously I wasn't saying they weren't. But the backwards religious fundamental anti science anti intellectual sharia law we know today wasn't introduced until most of the muslim kingdoms were conquered by the ottomans. Much bigger religious fanatics who went on to codify sharia law. That was the end of most of the muslims being at the forefront of scientific advancement and understanding. Now all you have to do is read sharia law to understand how it is completely antithetical to science/logic/intellectualism just like almost every other religion. The only difference is the middle east is completely filled with religious fanatics who still believe in virtually every word of it while most of the rest of the world has managed to push their religions into much smaller roles.
It's hilarious how anyone can even question the idea that religious fundamentalism isn't completely responsible for the pathetic state of the middle east. It has a virtual stranglehold over almost every muslim country. Even in the west religion is a constant impediment to science and reason and it has much less sway.
When the muslim world gets tired of their religion run governments only then will they be able to find a place back with the rest of modern society. Until then they will continue to be backwards extremist breeding grounds blaming everyone else for their problems.
i mean that's wonderful and all, but, hitchens didn't say ''the increase of terrorism is because they all believe every woman is a slave.''. Nice try, but i have ears.
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...
I don't understand how we have got to a point where people still defend Galloway's position on this. I have my differences with Hitchens on a lot, but he was right on this.
If you still don't understand then you never will, sadly. Hitchens was a joke by this point.
@@sacred1827 No I probably won't. Western masochism will always be anathema to me, and isolationism unfortunately won out in the end. We're in the midst of the results.
@@samconran isolationism won out?
@@sacred1827 Of course. The West withdrew from Iraq far too early, and then refused to intervene in a meaningful way in Syria, and allowed Russia to chip away at Eastern Europe and run the FSB rampantly through our streets. We did nothing to stem the Iranian Revolution and its expansion by proxy. But it's not just about military, we also started to withdraw from/grow sceptical of institutions (NATO, the Pacific partnerships, etc.). And look at the result. Russia emboldened to the point they started a fully fledged invasion. Iran emboldened and launching pogroms against Israel among other endeavours. And China gaining momentum in the region as well as Africa. Mistakes have been made but the liberal democratic world order is not a given. It needs constant defence and support worldwide and isolationism is its enemy.
@@samconranlol the typical type of pseudo alpha male armchair critic keyboard warrior you find on TH-cam. How about we focus on fixing our problems within USA before trying to play world police little man 😂😂😂
George Galloway was right.... He kicked Hitchens ass in the "Debate of the Decade"
@Matt S what on earth is that comment suppsed to mean? Bizarre.
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.
Wereis the full debate
Hitchens Was a gift to the world.
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.
@@Heprishencesorry, 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..
As a former marxist i would say he is familiar with Galloway. He has heard the things they say when the rest of us are not around
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.
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.)
@@localkauf he literally shills for Arab colonialists.
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 !!!!
I like Hitchens but in this situation he is no match for Galloway.
George Galloway has always been on point when it comes to politics 👏🏾
Not.
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 see no reason for such strong feelings about Galloway. He is a man who bothers to inform himself, and even if you disagree with some of what he says, his contributions are certainly not based on ignorance.
I think Galloway got the better of Hitchens. He got under his skin because he is as articulate and has the one liners like himself. Hitchens doesn't seem to like anyone other than himself get applause from the audience the ego of the man just can't take it. Hitchens was a smart well spoken man, but he never seemed to listen to anybody else's views rather he loves to spout the smart one liners for effect on many chat shows and to massage his inflated ego.
Silver spooned, privately educated people like Hitchens, often believe other people are beneath them
The time that Bill Maher felt the need to interrupt up with stupid questions when smart man where talking. 😎
Can you upload the whole thing please?
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.
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?
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!
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.
You know, the indoctrinated self-loathing of the modern western man is his worst problem. Y'all will tremble with rage upon ''white imperialism'' but when muslims blow up our cities the tone changes to ''perhaps we ought to reconsider ourselves''. It truly is pathetic, stupid and above all submissive.
Got to agree to a point. Even the point about Bin Laden, was right. Hitchens made out it was nonsense, yet he was funded by the cia against The soviets.
Galloway wiped the floor with Hitch when they debated the Iraq war, Hitch was a lightweight compared to Galloway.
Yep hitchens morphed into a neocon when confronted with Islam Muslims or just war in general... It's bizarre and terrifying to think that someone that we all admire would be so wrong on this singular issue
No: only on that particular subject. In this video, both men made inarguable points. They were both right on some issues and both wrong on others.
@@DieFlabbergast No
@@Mr_GMS It bothers me to this day. But hey, he's just human. We all make mistakes. Even the most brilliant ones...
Hitch was a lightweight lol he is 100% more intelluctual than galloway and his books are legendary. If you dont agree with him about iraq it doesnt mean you have to disrepect him like that.
Hitchens was very wrong here unfortunately
As always
No he wasnt. Fundamentalist islam is the problem and it will never be solved until people admit it. All galloway was doi g was maki g excuses for the conduct of religious Fundamentalist and hitchens was saying they will always have an excuse, which is exactly right. These are the same people killing people over cartoons, but tell me more about how its everyone elses fault for turning the muslim world into a backwater of civilization hundreds of years before the us even existed.
Specifically about his topic, Hitchens was mostly wrong. Galloway was on the spot here.
Hamas Galloway will support anything Islamic
If Galloway was right, how do you explain outfits like Boko Haram?
The same way you explain groups like lords resistance army.
The irresistible force against the immovable object.
I love Hitchens but Galloway had him here. I miss Hitchens.
Nah he just didn’t get to have a full conversation
I thought they were talking at cross purposes
The problem is the people who hate Galloway can not shake of their prejudice. Hitchens was a clever debater just this time he met someone just as good and in this case better. It may be there are other meetings where Hitchens came out on top but this is definitely not one of them
@@michaelkenny8540 Mr Galloway has a habit of putting points across via poetry which makes him look good but remove that and then he is lacklustre. It also doesn’t help Bills audience applauding anything. Do you really buy Mr Galloways statement that the USA created bin laden?
@@christopherhitchens163 I get you're trolling. but on the 0.001% chance you're not: it's declassified: the CIA supplied money and arms to bin laden to hold off the russian invasion.
What a delightful gorgeous bastard he was, I miss Christopher Hitchens.
Eww
Get a room
Who the hell misses Hitchens? He’s rotting in hell for supporting the so-called “war on terror”; absolutely unforgivable.
Poor Bill is way out of his depth.
I love Hitchens but I fully agree with Galloway on this one
Same.
Christopher Hitchens is much missed..
I admired Hitchens in the 90's but something strange happened to him after 9/11. Looking back now its clear he couldn't have been more wrong re the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. Can't help wondering if all the alcohol he was drinking did something to his brain. Such an intellect and yet so entirely wrong about Iraq.
Though I am a Muslim, but I admire Hitchens' personality, ability to debate and of course his voice and his brother's voice too which sounds the same for some point, but the thing is that this what happens when you are far away from the epicenter of the struggle...Hitchens depends on the eradication of religious fundamentalists, radical and fanatic muslims...But the story is that he was too blind to see how it would turn out in the hands of the US government, everybody prior to the invasion was against a war in the middle east, another interference would definitely cause more trouble because you can't implement democracy to an illiterate society, and that is what happened, the US was not able to reform stability in the region while searching for there interest, and you know the drill...Hitchens was blindfolded by his anti religious background, simply he is inadequate to speak about the politics of the middle east
Yeah there was definitely something going on toward the end, though I'm obviously not qualified to say what exactly. This quote didn't get much attention at the time but it speaks volumes about where Hitch's head was at in the early oughts- ""Watching the towers fall in New York, with civilians incinerated on the planes and in the buildings, I felt something that I couldn’t analyze at first and didn't fully grasp (partly because I was far from my family in Washington, who had a very grueling day) until the day itself was nearly over. I am only slightly embarrassed to tell you that this was a feeling of exhilaration. Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose. A pity that we let them pick the time and place of the challenge, but we can and we will make up for that."
Edit: there would have of course been the financial incentives to consider as well, but if we take the above quote at all seriously, there was clearly a pathological side to his reasoning.
@@HaplessHypnagogic Yep, good point, well said.
@@HaplessHypnagogic Christopher's (and Peter's) father was a naval officer. Have you considered the possibility that something was going on from the beginning rather than the end? Journalists with immediate family connections to the military is a red flag in my book.
For someone as apparently smart as Christopher, or Peter, to not know the real history as Galloway was alluding to here (the British influence in the region going back a century in particular), is just preposterous. They know. They're just operating on the assumption that the viewer won't.
No arguments except attacks on his ethos.
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.
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.
Cheney really did have Hitch by the balls, and in hindsight it is so pathetic to see.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
George galloway was ahead of his time in this clip
In what way?
Dudes an utter moron
He is an utterly odious splittist egotistical opportunist turd. God help Rochdale
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."
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
Love to see I'm not alone looking back at these clips. Back when Bill Maher actually was interesting.
Oh dear, no claps for Hitchens
A throwback to when Bill Maher was right about stuff....
Nope hes smarter nowadays
@@eVieww Maher is a child on Israel / Palestine
And he focuses on rightwing talking points about cultural wars when voting rights, the effort to try to cancel the whole damn election are vastly more important.
And when he used to speak in favor of healthcare for all he chickened out as soon as there was a chance for Sanders getting elected.
@@Hirnlego999 oh dear God. Right wing!? Anything but right wing!? Noooo!!!
@@eVieww loooooool he’s just an out of touch cranky boomer now
@@Hirnlego999 you're just listing left wing talking points that don't amount to much, unless you are like one of those people in that video that shows left wingers think minorities can't register (found it! th-cam.com/video/3JGmKHrWKMQ/w-d-xo.html)
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.
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
Hitchens is wit but in opposing Galloway’s point he seems quite shallow at it
Summarising the half century Israeli-Palestine issues to “evacuating Gaza” was his usual deliberate deceit on an issue in question. A lot of his nonsense was well spoken slight of hand and profound sounding moving of goal posts or reframing an issue provocatively.
Sleight.
It was not a “half century of Israel-Palestine issues.” It was an Arab campaign of genocide which principally started in 1937 when the then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem announced a bounty on the head of every Jew.
Thirteen different Arab states participated in the various Arab invasions of Israel, and were supported by the Soviet Union and other communist states.
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
Galloway is making a lot of sense. I don't know what Hitchens is arguing against.
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
He wasn't a war dog, he was vehemently opposed to militant Islam and all totalitarian regimes, also thought Hussein had WMD, a chokehold on major world oil supplies and that retaliation intervention in the middle east was a NATO imperative
So he was a war dog?
These folks couldn't be more wrong about Al Qaeda not having demands. Their primary demand was for the withdrawal of all U.S. and other western troops out of Saudi Arabia, and by proxy out of Mecca. That's it. That was their demand but we ignored it. Therefore AQ started a campaign of violence with bombings in Riyadh then Khobar towers, the U.S.S. Cole, bombing the WTC and so on. They predictably ramped up their attacks against the U.S. while we predictably stayed put until 9/11 when they finally got their way. As soon as the towers fell we were pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia and planting them in the surrounding countries for Bush's bullshit war with Iraq.
Demand No1. Leave us alone to grow the poppies....or is that the Taliban? So many different names I've lost count. What happened to the mujahideen? Now it's Isis.
That's not true. In Bin Laden's " letter to America" he outlined the terms of our surrender and the reasons he was fighting us in the first place. He citer the quran as justification for his war on the infidels. He said the first thing we had to do to stop him from attacking was to renounce all other religions, renounce the Constitution and convert to islam and live by Sharia law. Stop supporting Israel and leave everywhere else was an afterthought. This attack was sanctioned by the quran, islam has been attacking everyone else for 1400 years, long before Bush, long before the USA, long before troops in Saudi Arabia.It's the words in the quran that dd this, not troops in Saudi Arabia.
It’s amazing how much of a 180 Hitch made in terms of his politics later in life. Religion really blurred his old anti-imperialist views
With you on that brother. Perhaps part of becoming an adult is being critical of people one respects.
He was right
@@laxjs Ben Affleck is a good actor dude, and he was totally right when calling out Sam Harris on Maher’s program.
@@highlightrelz897 Silly little Ben was batting way out of his league when he insulted Sam Harris. And George Galloway was business buddies with Saddam Hussein's deranged psychotic sun Udy, and made a lot of money together with that rapist. Think about that. Galloway is a 5th column Islamist traitor. Hitchens owned him.
@@X9523-z3v Well sounds like a you problem because gone girl will always be an all time fav for me
Hitchens traded American praise for truth and integrity. Galloway held up as time shows.
You've obviously not seen his sycophantic interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, later he defended the Iranian leader's execution of gays by swallowing whole the obviously lie that one was an alleged criminal.
It's best not to judge Galloway on Iraq where he was right, since on the Soviet Union and Iran and other enemies of the USA the enemies of his enemies are invariably his friends and wise he certainly is not.
@@garymorgan3314 Doesn't matter. We cannot kill them all to "save them". If my neighbour likes to beat his wife, do i firebomb their house hurting them all?
Galloway's an anti semite
@@garymorgan3314 Hitchens was a huge lover of Trotsky, former leader of the Red Army. Trotsky was basically Che 100x. And Hitchens idolized him.
@@blackphillip564 Not exactly news to me BS.. I pointed out the very thing: Trotsky drserves no-one's praise ...except as a brilliant writer on post WW3 Germany. He almost preferred Luxemboug, a far better person.
.
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 lost this one, long term.
He never loses
@@ZEP0034Maturing is noticing Hitchens is for 20 yr olds who think speaking intellectually gives you merit
@@3three3 Hitchens and Peterson are two of the most intelligent people around. Galloway just rambles on about Jihad and Afghanistan etc.
@@ZEP0034Hitchens is intelligent but saying “he never loses” just reflects your lack of awareness
@Azoria4 If you get what I'm saying he's a good debater. I don't even agree with some of what he says and Galloway. Galloway is good too but it's all backing up terrorists and organisations. Some is right and some isn't but Hitchens is more interesting could watch him longer . Your lack of awareness is that I have an opinion so try not to be too clever cheers.
My beloved Hitches supported a war started by a lie and Dick Cheney's intrigue.
Guy was an idiot with nice accent
An unbeliever has no principles… he goes with the flow… but Hitchens is now finding out what it’s like to be in a place he didn’t believe in..😂😂😏
Apparently getting rid of racist fascist crime bosses isn't worth doing, gotcha.
@@franceleeparis37 Total nonsense!!... but i would of expected nothing more!
@@RikerLovesWorfSounds like you're describing american leaders.
Disappointing to hear a man of Hitchens learning, a long term supporter of the Palestinian cause of self determination, talking about “helping Israeli’s evacuate Gaza’ as if it was a benign and altruistic gesture, when in fact, it was based on growing international condemnation that increasingly Israel itself couldn’t justify and led to the incarceration of Gaza ever since by the occupation and control of all land, sea and air borders. Galloway is spot on by suggesting the only way to starve Al Qaeda and it’s like is for the west to become an honest broker in the region, stop its support of Israel’s occupation and establish a fully independent state of Palestine on the 67 borders. This, alongside other policies that undermine fairness and international justice must be at the heart of western and indeed global policy to redeem ourselves amongst the Arab people.
Islam was part of the western policy to do that to the region. Make sure to add that. And why is this region not up in arms about Kurds and just Palestinians? Gosh, I wonder why
@ Because Kurds don’t have any claim to the “Holy Land.”
Many think that British accent is a sign of an intellectual person. H. Is very shallow.
Perhaps educated, not “intellectual”; official culture has been called “decent philistine.”
A bunch of Americans, mostly, who cares? Try to think of a better and less fallacious setup next time, chump.
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.
Rest in Peace Hitch!!! ❤️
😂😂 what? He believes he has no soul 😂😂
@@ga4214 the Soul is the Essence of you
@@HeprishenceYou 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.
Galloway and Hitchens both make valid points, just coming at it from different angles. But seriously, what is up with Kate Moss? C'mon people
That was legendary at 2:02😂
I’ve never liked Hitchens, and this is an example of why. Pompous, blinkered, …
I prefer Hitchens to Galloway as Galloway chops and changes who he wants to suck upto and will keep him relevant but Hitchens was more wrong on this situation , although George knows what causes to fight for and sides to take which will make him look good .
Not really: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is Galloways m.o. and that enemy is America. Hence Galloway’s Stalinist sympathies, his unnecessary lauding of Saddam; the craven interview with Ahmadinejad in 2010 ...Galloway is not to be trusted.
Here’s he’s right, but a stopped clock looks right twice a day. Yugoslavia would have become greater Serbia had Galloway had his way and Sierra Leone ruled by gangsters with ghastly Charles Taylor ruling Liberia.
Caveat spectator always with Galloway, a nasty piece of work.
@@garymorgan3314 I totally agree with that on Galloway he is a snake, prime example is right now Galloway said he would want someone to kill him if he ever joined forces with the conservatives in Britain , he's now voting for them this election to stop his own country from
Becoming independent (Scotland )
@@lfc200506 Indeed yes and we Galloway watchers are of course not remotely surprised.
Americans tend not to know this and imagine the Scot is principled and wise. If only they knew....
Cheers
George would have been pro invasion for the right price.
@@geeman.8081 agreed
I remember this day clearly because it was the moment Hitchens lost me.
Yep. I love Hitch, especially on religion, but there's no denying that living in America and being immersed in American propaganda 24/7 for so many years did skew his political thought.
I remember that neocon pro-war sentiment at the time was so prevalent that it was difficult to not get caught up in that hoopla. I was so disappointed to see Hitchens fall for it, which only served to grow my respect for Galloway at the time. It could not have been easy to go against the grain like he did but he stuck to his guns. And here we are two decades later and he's the one whose views aged well, not Hitchens.
Hitchens, like much of the west, got spooked by 9/11 and transformed into a scared neocon.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 We see a form of paranoid McCarthyism rear its head every couple decades or so.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 No disrespect intended to the innocents who died, but I still have trouble seeing "9/11" as anything other than America getting one taste on its home turf of the kind of destruction, horror, and civilian death that it cheerfully inflicts on other faraway countries on a regular basis.
Kudos to Galloway for using the word "obscurantist".
Why? It's not as if Hitchens was one thus why commend someone for using a word than a well-read person should know!
Unless you think it really IS that recherche....like recherche!
@@garymorgan3314 Delete your comment.
@@charlieparkeris Why?
@@charlieparkeris I tend not to obey peremptory requests. If you can provide a reason. Can't see one. Unless you'd like to laud "peremptory" of course!
@@charlieparkeris C'mon nosy, at least attempt a reason.
Love hitch. But damn was Galloway dead on point here.
Hitchens' elegent to correct ratio does not align in the way we'd like to remember
Nag nag nag nag
Probably got slipped something nasty about this time, he looks healthy & a bit preoccupied. I will always love U HITCH, a real American!
Good discussion.
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"
The point he is making is this problem stems from their religion. Which is true. Their religion is the root for all of these problems.
It goes back to religion I’m afraid. There’s no refuting this.
@@jazzman2516the Zionists were atheists, the Torah gave justification, but they were going to colonize, whether it was Palestine, Uganda, or Argentina
Essentially, like a woman that is the victim of domestic abuse, George Galloway makes excuses for our abusers, we brought it on ourselves, If only we had acted differently we wouldn’t have angered the abuser, it’s not the abusers fault that he’s violent, it’s our fault for angering him. no matter how many times the victim appeases the abuser, the abuser will always find a way to justify another beating, for some perceived or concocted transgression.
overused analogy
@@thishandleistaken1011 It's the perfect analogy which, psychologically, is exactly right in how it portraying the issue.
15 years after the debate I think we can say with certainty that Hitchens got the big picture right. After the events since that debate you cannot possibly argue that the US Iraq adventure is responsible for global jihad.
ISIS? And rewind to the first gulf war. Hitchens was vomiting the same shit Galloway was saying
It very obviously was since if it wasn't for the iraq war isis would have never existed
Right?
You fight terrorism with intelligence and police work mainly. Not with armies, which is counterproductive.
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1.html
Clearly western imperialism also is tied to religious fanatics getting power, the west tends to gladly support secular dictatorships as long as they are willingly selling themselves.
You can't possibly argue that? Are you sure?
this guy forgot about the global Crusade movement already in progress for centuries till today
Loved Hitchens, but Galloway was on the money here.
How?
@@andrewwells6323 By being proven right by history, and he was facually correct about the points on Bin Laden.
@@mathiassvendsen6886 Galloway hasn't been proven right by anything, he support the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan which started all of this.
@@andrewwells6323 If that is true then i disagree with Galloway on that
@@mathiassvendsen6886 He also supported Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, its bombing of Syria, its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the current onslaught in Ukraine.
George Galloway is not antiwar, he just supports the other side.