Acclaimed writer and political scholar Christopher Hitchens may just be the only writer to have recently visited Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hitchens - known for his keen wit, sharp political insight and often controversial opinions - examines the differences between the countries once linked as the "axis of evil," while revealing intriguing connections between the nations.
Christopher Hitchens is an author and journalist whose books, essays, and journalistic career span more than four decades. He has been a columnist and literary critic at The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry, and became a media fellow at the Hoover Institution in 2008.
Steven Boyd Saum
Steven came to the SCU team in April 2006 from The Commonwealth Club of California, where he edited The Commonwealth magazine and the collection Each a Mighty Voice. He has served in the Peace Corps and directed the Fulbright program in Ukraine, and his writing has appeared in Salon, the Christian Science Monitor, the Kenyon Review, and elsewhere.
Journalist Christopher Hitchens comments on the consequences of the age demographic in Iran. Hitchens claims that nearly half of the Iranian population is under 25, which has resulted in a "baby-boomerang."
"The Mullahs have by accident ... brought about a generation that doesn't like them."
Journalist Christopher Hitchens elaborates on his view of Iranian nuclear policy. Hitchens says, "Which do you think is worse: The Mullahs get a bomb after the way they have behaved to their own people and to their neighboring countries? Or, that they be told that they cannot have a bomb?"
Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (seeReign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the dirty war of the 1970s. Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world. The deadliest terrorist attack ever occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 (seeSeptember 11 attacks), when members of al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and one into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa. The crashes resulted in the collapse of much of the World Trade Center complex, the destruction of part of the southwest side of the Pentagon, and the deaths of some 3,000 people.
Am i correct in assuming your post was directed toward another poster (perhaps Ouroboros or Invictus_88) rather than me?
I dont think anything i have written could be construed as taking the side of religion.
If so, all i can say is i agree with your analogy. Our world would not suddenly become bereft off challeges of course, but as i've said earlier, the demise of religion would rid us of one vehicle used to justify heinous acts. If an individual, group or nation commit crimes against humanity, how do they construct a defence for their action? As it is, RC's can listen to the Pope denounce condom use in AIDS ravished Africa thus condemning millions to die, allowing the RC community reason to do nothing...the Pope being infallable afterall. Islamists have religious backing and scripture to do almost anything to an infidel, just for being an infidel. Denied that sort of excuse can only be a good thing. For the many who do good things in the name of religion today, there is no compunction to cease their good works in a religiously free world tomorrow.
Originally Posted by Invictus_88
No, you're still missing the point.
You're obsessing over religion, even to the point of assuming I am one when you've no evidence for it.
My word, I've been reading this for the last five minutes and have just realised I rather recognise your name...I wonder if you are who I think you are.
So my point is this. Why do you continue to apologise for religion? If you are who I think you are, then I know you enough that you are not religious (too any great extent), and I know you are a damnably bright person. So why do you side with religion? Or is it that you do not have a side? If so then why get involved as you clearly have.
Tell me, why we cannot do without religion? I have never believed in a god, no more than a 5 year old thinks he is a tree. Am I not a moral person? I am just like you, but I have never needed nor belonged to a religion. People do not need religion, and when they realise this, well, they probably won't notice, people being people. But the world will, in some small way, be if not more peaceful, then certainly mentally healthier.
To think of an analogy - imagine you wish to diet. And you wish to eat some bacon. What do you do? You trim the fat off. Sure, there will still be fat in the meat, but you trim the fat off because it is pure fat. It doesn't detract from the taste of the bacon, nor that it is still bacon. But it is better for you.
Now imagine the world, or rather, humanism as bacon, and religion as the fat. You take away religion and you are left with a population just as moral, if not more moral, than before. And what you have taken away is irrationality, faith and of course, those pesky fundamentalists who just love each other so much. But you still have decent, hardworking, intelligent people at the end of the day.
To sum all this up in the words of the Hitch himself - tell me, what good act can a theist do that an atheist can't?
The vehicles of oppression of which you speak, Invictus_88 don't last long (even though N.Korea is still with us), not much more than a generation or two. The religious tyrannies have endured for millennia, and the succession of imperial structures they supported have endured for many centuries: Czarist Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Imperial Rome, Imperial India, the Aztec/Toltec regimes, the Inca, Babylonia, the Ottomans, and so on.
I'm of two minds about the Elgin Marbles. The English still take good care of them, and have for close on to two centuries. When Elgin PURCHEASED the marbles (beating out the French, who were also after them) the Turks, who -- alas! -- had legal if not moral title to them, were using them for target practice. But for the mythical "theft" of the marbles by the Brits, they would probably have been irretrievably lost. On the other hand, the Greeks have, in the last few years, created a public context into which the marbles can physically placed and viewed by the larger world that, like Greece itself, owes so much to the ancient democratic polity that created itself and flourished around the base of the Acropolis and the nearby hills.
Originally Posted by jongadel
it is still broken!
here's the error
error: object doesn't support his property or method
That's a common warning seen in internet explorer caused by certain advertisements. It does not prevent you from using the site or watching video. Check our Help section or contact us directly if you continue to see problems.
this video is 'still' not playing for me after i reported this error more than 24 hours ago
error: object doesn't support his property or method
Yes...the Iran is bad...but USA is angel...the USA is bad. why only usa can build bombs, bomb other countries..kill people...but when someone else tries to protect themselfs from USA, then those countries are bad..and evil.. USA is evil, no need to be very smart to see that. usa only wants to take all oil, kill milions of people cause some few rich bastards likes so. Every country have that right-to pretect itself..
usa tries to look like hero..- we'll protect whole world from those bad guys..If usa really wanted to help-they can help African people, but what they're doing? theyuse those people as lab rats, by giving experimental drugs, in food and so on.