Not Just Flesh and Blood (UPDATED)

Christopher Hitchens knows why they hate us:

We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

You and I may not hate Islamists because they are Muslim, but you can best believe that they hate us because we are not. And in the case of black people, they hate us, Muslim or not, because they consider us their dogs. And in the case of Arab Muslim, peace-loving Iraqis, because they don't want to eliminate the infidel.

So it would appear that the only good non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-Islamist is a dead non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-Islamist.

But this is more that a mere racial or cultural or civilizational battle. It’s one between the Forces of good and evil. And at some level, conscious or not, even rabid atheists and brilliant men like Mr. Hitchens understand this.

Apologists for these monsters, however, do not grasp even the most rudimentary of these facts. They are the ones to be pitied, even more than the dead.

UPDATE: On his radio show and his blog, Hugh Hewitt notes an interview of Christopher Hitchens by Ron Reagan on MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast. What a frightening intellectual mismatch that is! (Here's the transcript at Radioblogger.)

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.

Poor Ron. Blissfully, he probably doesn't realize how embarrassing the schooling was that Christopher gave him. It's a blessing that Ron's father isn't here to see it.

But Ron's problem is emblematic of those who refuse to see the nature of our enemy. He thinks that we can do something other than cease to exist in order to get the terror masters to stop blowing us up. He also thinks that history started on January 20, 2001 (the day George W. Bush was first inaugurated).

Unfortunately, I suspect that a WMD strike by the terrorists will get the attention of the George Galloways and the Ron Reagans of this world, however. Of course, that will be bad for the Western world, but it will be far worse for the Islamic world. We have hundreds (thousands?) of those things and a nuked USA/UK will have nothing to lose.

That fact ought to wake a few people up, but I'm not optimistic about it.

UPDATE: Hitchens and Reagan, the video.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Comments

[DarkStar]

1. Chris forgot to mention that Sadaam later had a few of those people killed.

2. I still question why Bush isn't saying what Chris said. In other words, why are Chaney and Bush not on the same talking points page?

[Chrish]

RR is such a tool. Saddam is not an exporter of terror? It's pretty widely known that saddam was paying off the family of suicide bombers for Hamas. RR should also read the 9/11 Commission's report a little less selectively and a little more carefully: the report does state that there was no operational link between 9/11 and Saddam, but that there were certainly contacts between Saddam an Al Qaeda.

[Tony Miller]

And when the WMDs hit, Ron Reagan and his ilk will be blaming Bush for not doing enough to stop it, while they fight the patriot act and give aid and comfort to our enemies from the floor of the Senate.

[Steve]

Al Zarqawi, and over a dozen others fleeing Afghanistan, entered Baghdad in the spring of 2002. Al Zarqawi's group had at that time an Ansar al-Islam base in Northern Iraq. That base was established by a short war these "Afghans" had with the Kurds in Sept/Oct 2001 just after the annual terrorist conference held in Baghdad on August 19, 2001 where over 100 of the most radical terrorist and terror groups participated.

It was Al Zarqawi's group that was responsible for Lawrence Foley's death in Amman Jordan in October 2002. It was Saddam's connections to Abu Sayyaf group that was responsible for Mark Wayne Jackson's death in Zamboanga City Philippines that got a dozen Iraqi "diplomats" expelled from there.

It was a homocide bus bomber that killed the 14 year old American girl named Abigail Litle. The funds for the homocide bomber's familiy coming from the Arab Liberation Front with money originating with Taha Yassin Ramadan the very man in charge arranging oil-for-food contracts with the Iraqi government.

[Ken Summers]

"...they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror"

Obviously he did not read the report.

He also seems to have forgotten that ol' Sammy USED WMD against Iran and against his own people, paid Pali terrorists, and harbored terrorists. "Not exporting terror", indeed.

[Ruth H]

When they took Lester Holt off the afternoon news slots I sent a letter of protest to MSNBC. Of course, I have not heard back, and I have not watched as I am sure young RR makes a complete fool of himself. He is a know-nothing man living off his father's image, which he has more or less trashed every time I've seen him. And I'm sure his mother is very proud.

[Steve (click here)]

There is also this matter. After Saddam's Baathist government was toppled Iraq's Prague embassy was cleaned out. In Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani's diary there was an entry for the disputed date (early April 2001) of his meeting with Mohammed Atta. The entry said meeting with "hamburg student".

Muhammad Farouq Abu Roub was involved with Abul Abbas (Klinghoffer's murderer on the cruise ship Achille Larro) who was then residing with Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Abu Roub was arrested in January 2003 and said he was sent by Abul Abbas to poison the Israeli waters with Ricin. He said there was plenty of it in Baghdad. January 2003 was the same month that Ricin was found in a London Apartment that was thought to have originated in the Ansar Islam camp of Al-Zarqawi in Northern Iraq. Zarqawi's training in Ricin and other bioweapon technology was said to have originated with Iraq's government.

Zarqawi comes from an area of Jordan where there are many Palestinian "refugees" who have gone to Afghanistan and then on to Iraq. Gitmo is said to have about 60 of these Zarqa, Jordan area Palestinians who have in the past been in contact with the old Iraqi Intelligence Service.

On April 11, 2003, two days after Saddam's statue was toppled, the Egyptian ship Wabi Alaras headed for Cananda from Brazil was to have a package of Anthrax or Ricin on board. That package didn't make it because the guy, Ibrahim Saved Soliman Ibraham, who was to carry it got curious about the package he was given and openned it.

Remember also the liquid paper white-out of a document retrieved in April 2003 at Iraq's Intelligence Headquarters after it was bombed out. It was a letter from February or March of 1998 (Osama's US and Iraq subject centered fatwa was issued Feb. 23, 1998) inviting a representative of Bin Laden to Baghdad. It appears that there was an Al Qaeda meeting around Saddam's birthday party in late April 1998 that included many terrorists and Al Qaeda.

[MorningSun]

To be more accurate , Saddam didn't have a direct " operational " link to terror. He had links to terror.Direct links to terrorist funding in payments to suicide bombers.

But being that he was a heritic to OBL's type and all.. he couldn't tell them what to do. He could however let them operate as long as he gained some benefit.
ex. Ansar was whiping out the Kurds which we all know was a project Saddam would like to see completed.

ex. Salman Pak as we know was a place there to teach " anti-hijacking methods " Yea right , still running in a country that wasn't allowed to fly. The UselessNations bought that one.

[Rusten Currie]

I have long said that the "left" is not defined by what they stand for, but are continuosly marginalized by what they stand against. I dread the day that sees a chemical and or God forbid a nuclear attack, but I fear it is coming. When it does, of course the right will be blamed for not doing enough. To those who are so enlightened that they cannot fathom the depths of hatred our enemies have for us. To those that think that these people can be reasoned with, they are in for a rude awakening when that attack comes. Not if... when. I was looking back at a string of posts on boomantribune, and had to laugh out loud. I have been in Iraq for 6.5 months. And they are still calling me a liar, and attacking me. Apparently I am not in Iraq, but I am a shill reporter for the Neo-cons. The truth of the matter is, I am in Iraq. that is a fact, and they (the intelligencia, who know more than I) refuse to even allow that fact to penetrate their minds. So liberal are they and so righteous is their quixotic charge, that they are indeed blinded by the trees and are missing the forest.

Cheers balilocks, good writng.

Russ

[Bill from INDC]

even rabid atheists and brilliant men like Mr. Hitchens understand this.

Only quibble, one doesn't need religion to easily recognize the concepts of good and evil. Great post.

[BEAM]

Darkstar: "I still question why Bush isn't saying what Chris said. In other words, why are Chaney and Bush not on the same talking points page?"

For the same reason they've never bothered to remind people of the Senate's unanimous passing of the Iraq Liberation Act during Clinton's presidency. Because this White House runs an abysmal PR shop. They have no concept whatsoever of getting out in front of an issue. How Karl Rove has gotten a reputation as a 'political genius' is beyond me.

[Patrick]

BEAM, I was thinking the same thing. Rove is the master puppeteer, manipulating the MSM in every way. However, we can't seem to remind folks that Osama has been around for twenty years, and there are millions of folks in Iraq who AREN'T PLANNING TO KILL US.

[PackerBronco]

All this stuff about Saddam not having a link to terror is nonsense. Think of this way: you own a home and knowingly rent to a mass-murderer. Now you may not have an "operational link" to the scum because you don't buy him weapons, but you sure bear some responsibility for giving him a place to stay and the police have the right to haul your **** to jail. RRJR is too stupid to recognize this point.

[The Drill SGT]

My best movie analogy to the OBL versus Western civilization confruntation is from Independence Day. The President is under Area 51 and they are communicating with the alien.

Pres(western civ): what do you want us to do?

Alien (OBL): Die!!

therecan be no compromise with either the aliens or OBL.

the issue is not Iraq, it's our continued existence that offends them.

[Lisa Gilliam]

boy did Ron Reagan get his butt kicked to the curb.Sorry Ron,you aint got it like that!You debating Chris Hitchens is like Chris Matthews debating Sir Winston Churchill,had he still been living.I can only speak for myself here but if this country is attacked once again,somebody on the left will get hurt really bad.They won't have any time to blame America then.Baldilocks great job!And God Bless you!

[Rod Stanton]

Lil Ron lied. He did not hear the Commission. He had to read the report, which he obviously can not do, to get the facts. What he may have heard were Congressional Hearings, aka political sound bites. Not the Report.

[Francis]

I'm a Hugh Hewitt fan and am also from Ohio. I linked to your site from Hugh's site to read what you said about Ronnie the "Twit". I was the caller into Hugh's show on Friday that quipped that Ronnie was leaving MSNBC after the Hitchen's tongue lashing and taking up Ballet again. I enjoyed what you said about both Ron and Hitchens. You sound like a very interesting Person. I enjoyed your site and felt like letting you know. I wanted to encourage you to keep up the entertaining writing and insightful comments. Thanks Francis Yubero

[Larry OC]

Note the smug attitude from Little Ron as he attempts to sound intellectually superior by reading his DNC talking points. He is silly enough to bring up the 9/11 commission findings as "proof" that Saddam was not involved in international terror and then within ten seconds must concede that they actually stated they had no PROOF of a "substantive operational connection" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Of course, he concedes this point and his hoisted with his own petard.

[Bob Dwyer]

Great blog filled with what's lacking most in our political discourse(common sense.) Ron Reagan intellectually competing with Christopher Hitchins is like Woody Allen challenging David Ortiz in Monday's All Star home run derby. Ron Reagan adds nothing to the debate except silly, well rehearsed anti-Bush blather. Newton's theory of gravity notwithstanding, that apple fell a very long way from the tree.

[Bob Dwyer]

Great blog filled with what's lacking most in our political discourse(common sense.) Ron Reagan intellectually competing with Christopher Hitchins is like Woody Allen challenging David Ortiz in Monday's All Star home run derby. Ron Reagan adds nothing to the debate except silly, well rehearsed anti-Bush blather. Newton's theory of gravity notwithstanding, that apple fell a very long way from the tree.

[Bill O...]

It is great to see that so many of the posters to this story have set aside what I assumed would be partisan biases to praise former "The Nation" editorialist Christopher Hitchens. I assume you have also given some of his other pre-Iraq war writings some of your attention also whether it be his anti-Vietnam war stuff from when he first got to the US circa 1960's to the stuff attacking former president Ronald Reagan Sr.and the American right in general. E.G. this one from 2 years ago where he calls R.Reagan Sr. stupid: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/ and there are so many more fairly recent ones just like this. Hitchens has modeled every fiber of his career and persona after George Orwell which is a good thing in that both men were "apolitical" i.e. able to call both sides of the spectrum on their ignorance and hypocrisy.

[Ed Sanders]

I'm guessing that Hitchens was predictably whiskey-dipped at the time, as he usually is.

Oh, and some of you apparently are ignorant of the fact that Hugh Hewitt is a fucking moron. Now you know.

[baldilocks]

As opposed to your Mensa-level commentary, eh Ed? Such imaginative vocabulary!

[baldilocks]

Bill O:

Yes. That is *exactly* why we note Mr. Hitchen's commentary; his change of heart in the face of new evidence.

You may not know this, but I use to be a democrat also; not as left-leaning as Mr. Hitchens, however.

You may not know also that Mr. Hitchens has been criticized here for his reflexive rage against any well-loved icon, especially religious ones.