OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

Im saying its possible, Im saying that the missile and hologram theories are obviously not possible, as is the one where the planes were doubles and the real ones landed elsewhere.
Believing the official story is on a par with believing there were WMDs in Iraq.

There are lots of things that dont add up but I cant be sure why.
Can you give me a legitimate reason why they would smuggle the whole family of Bin Laden out of the country on the only flight allowed the following day?
Wouldnt you have thought theyd want to interview the immediate family of the man responsible for the biggest attacks in their history?
What are the odds of them having a hijacking drill that day resulting in the order for all fighters to stand down?

Its like a god/aliens argument. I cant believe anyone would state they are 100% sure either way.
You are not questioning anything when you should. Im sure youd have laughed at me if I said they were monitoring everyones communication a year ago.

 

Just off up the road for a swift pint or two. I'll get back to you on this latest installment of gibberish later, but just on one point, a good reason for for getting the Bin Laden relations out of the country (not the day after but when the air space opened again, as I told you many posts ago) is the physical threat they were under because of their surname had they stayed in the US.

 

Flyer, instead of inviting others to agree that certain "fantasticals" of 9/11 were theoretical possibility or otherwise, maybe you should simply set out exactly what you believe?

 

Back now, heartily endorse this suggestion. Please let us know what you believe and why it is any more probable than the widely accepted version of events.

This debate has nothing in common with arguments about the existence of God, a metaphysical dialogue with no definitive answer because of the regressive nature of the question, or whether aliens exist or not/have visited earth, an academic question which will be proved one way or the other eventually. We are discussing the train of events which resulted in thousands of people being murdered.

 

I'm disappointed that you didn't respond to this Uber. I would really like to know what PH 'truths' I have missed.

 

There is a 'Hitchens v Hitchens' debate on YouTube, under that title, where they argue about religion and the Iraq War. I won't post the link because I haven't watched it and its an hour and twenty minutes long. But perhaps a way to weigh up the relative merits of their arguments.

 

I've think I've seen and read enough from each of them to know where I stand, Stan. Uber posted something suggesting that PH espoused 'truths' that were ignored by the likes of me because of who he is. I just want to know what he considers these to be.

 

Gosh, I would hate to disappoint you, Strolls. I would absolutely hate it! Hate it, d'yer hear?

You've said that you're struggling to come up with any of PH's 'truths' (apologies, I wish I'd said opinions that I agree with, rather than truths, but there you go...) that you could accept, but have only misrepresented one of his opinions regarding cannabis.

I am given to believe by your comment that you disagree with absolutely everything that he says, without exception. Is that a fair impression?

 

Yeah, I remember watching that a few years ago. As I said earlier, I find it curious that Peter did not support the war, whereas Christopher did. I would expect many people to have thought it to have been the other way around.

 

When I get the time I'm going to watch the debate because I'm not familiar with the P Hitchens side of the argument. As I recall C Hitchens supported it as a way to remove the evil of the Saddam regime. While I don't disagree with this as an end I think it papers over the cracks of what was obviously an opportunistic, badly planned and tragically short sighted war in terms of consequences for the people of Iraq and casualties for the 'allied' forces. The original attack on Afghanistan was much more justifiable, though equally opportunistic, given the wholly disgusting Taliban regime's obvious sponsorship of violent international Islamic fundamentalism and the medieval conditions imposed on their own people. But once again the 'endgame' planning has been woeful.

They really should have looked at history, including the first Flashman novel, and understood that no invader has ever 'won' a war in Afghanistan and understood that any kind of occupation was bound to end in tears. I desperately hope to be proved wrong on this.

 

In light of what you've written here, I thought I'd better take a scroll back and remind myself what I actually wrote. This was it:

"It's the 'heresy' point again, Col. When people like Peter Hitchens challenge modern 'convention' with truths many refuse to listen to what they actually say simply because of from whose mouth these truths are uttered. Many would have him burned at the stake just for challenging the cannabis lobby."

It would appear that I neither personally named you, nor specifically put you into the group that I crudely called the "many". I proffer that it was you yourself that identified yourself to this group (using the expression "...the likes of me..."), thus now giving me the impression that you are one that ignores what Hitchens says purely because of a dislike of him.

As I said above, 'truths' was clumsy and 'opinions' more appropriate.

Sorry.

 

Yes, I do disagree with pretty much everything I have read or heard him say. Not because of who he is though, but because of what he says. I was genuinely seeking your opinion as to what you consider I was missing. As you concede, using the word 'truths' was unfortunate. It is about opinions after all.

 

No you didn't name me, Uber, but as I was the only one on this thread to criticise PH it was reasonable to assume that I was included in the 'many' you refer to. As I have already said, it is what he says that I object to - not who he is.

 

How could I possibly know what you're missing? You only mentioned an incorrect opinion on one aspect of the cannabis debate. Hitchens has posted comment and opinion on a myriad subjects including uncontrolled immigration, the cowardice and uselessness of the Conservative Party, capital punishment, religion versus atheism, the quality and entertainment value (or otherwise) of a number of recent films and so forth.

Am I given to believe that there is not one iota of opinion therein that you have a modicum of sympathy with?

Take his criticism of Argo, for instance, in which he opines that it would have been a better film had it dealt with the support that British personnel gave during that sorry episode. Instead the film chose to both ignore this and include a reference to British refusal to assist. If the truth was as he described in his piece, then I agree with him. Hollywood (and film in general) has a history of not letting facts get in the way of a good story, but I personally find it disappointing because the ignorant tend to accept the Hollywood version as the true account of what took place. A minor omission in this particular case perhaps, but nevertheless regrettable.

 

A reasonable assumption on your part perhaps, but I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I banged it out on the keyboard. If you recognised yourself then that's down to you, I'm afraid.

I have no particular desire to string this out any further, so am off to bed. I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on a great variety of subjects, Stroller. Sometimes two people just don't fit.

 

Ubes, it was you that referred to the cannabis debate, and how many would have PH 'burned at the stake' for his views - I merely attempted a rebuttal of his views on the subject, and was asking you for other examples of PH opinions that you thought I should consider. His views on Hollywood movies seem to me to be of no consequence.

 

Stroller, you are quite correct; I did make the first reference to Peter Hitchens in respect of his opposition to the cannabis lobby. It was you, however, that then misrepresented one of his opinions on the subject, which I have challenged a couple of times and you have ignored. No matter.

His views on Argo may be of no consequence to you, but do you agree with the basic premise that it would be better that, if filmmakers wish to tell a 'true' story, they at least accurately depict events and circumstances? Argo comes across as slightly anti-British as a result, which is unfair (although Hollywood has a lot of previous on this score). I guess it is easier to say that you pretty much disagree with everything somebody says if you dismiss some of these things as trivial and of no consequence, huh?

 

From what I can see up to that point on this thread, the only 'criticisms' that you offered were that you preferred his brother and that he himself was a '****'.

 

Yes, you have accused me more than once of misrepresenting PH on cannabis, but you haven't said how, so I was unable to respond. I haven't seen Argo, and don't have in-depth knowledge of the true events, so cannot really comment on that either. I would agree that filmmakers should portray historical events accurately, but, as you say, Hollywood has previous here - Braveheart? There is nothing wrong, though, with drawing attention to these inaccuracies and PH can be commended for doing so - it is not, though, an issue of burning importance in my view. However, the elephant in the room that I was ignoring and that you had already referred to is the issue of Iraq, where I would be on PH's side. There, I feel better already.

 

Yes, that didn't really contribute much did it?