Cole, Hitchens, and the threat of a US attack on Iran

73 thoughts on “Cole, Hitchens, and the threat of a US attack on Iran”

1. We should not go to war with Iran – no matter what the President of Iran says about us, Israel, Europe or whomever.
   I think the President of Iran is a nut, and in this case, I think Prof. Cole’s desire (a noble one) to stop what he perceives to be an impending war might (note: i said “might,” not “is”) be leading him to make the most innocuous interpretation of what really seems to be fairly incendiary remarks by Ahmadinejad.
   But again, I just want to say, that aside, we should NOT, not, NOT, attack Iran.
   One can conclude both that Ahmadinejad (for whatever reason – be it political or out of true conviction) is saying some hateful, dangerous and violent things about Israel and also conclude that it’s a bad idea for either the U.S. or Israel to attack Iran.
   This latest blog feud is entertaining, but not very instructive on the issues – both participants have so gotten under the other’s skin that it’s beyond helpful.
   But I do have a question about the email group privacy. For the record, I actually don’t think it’s elitist to be a member of that group. And I think it’s a great idea. But (and using occam’s razor – it’s much more likely that SOMEONE IN the group emailed Hitchens with Cole’s entry, rather than Hitchens someone hacking into the group or stealing it) is Hitchens then bound (legally or any other way) by the norms of the group to which he is not a member?
   It’s the person who emailed it to him (again, not 100% positive that’s what happened, but it’s by far the most likely scenario – Hitchens is a lot of things, but I’m guessing high-level computer encryption/hackery stud is not one of them) that should be the object of the group’s scorn for the privacy issues that were violated, right?

2. Just to add, it’s clearly not a classy move by Hitchens if he was aware of the private nature of the group – and I don’t think anyone would regard his article as classy anyway, even if they agreed with it in substance.
   But if he was passed the email by a member of the group, rather than hacking it out of a computer, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of his own personal ethics.

3. “Hi. Long time listener, first time caller…”
   That’s BS.
   I’ve never been here before. I’ve also never been to England. I’ll never attend Oxford. And I’d never heard of Hitchens until a couple years ago.
   It first seems to me that expecting comments made in the arena of a “fairly large” listserv to remain private is at best naive.
   Secondly, while Hitchens is certainly hawkish nowadays, it is glib to write him off as a “rightist.” I’ve not seen him embrace any form of organized religion. He’s high on personal liberties and very low on governmental prohibitions. I consider the latter to be quite liberal and not rightist.
   Perhaps I have miscontrued the remarks made above about Hitchens’s rightness. If that is the case I apologize.
   (Of course my comments are not “courteous, fresh, helpful, and to the point,” so they are worthy of deletion — quite the stringent policy you have.)

4. “Hi. Long time listener, first time caller…”
   That’s BS.
   I’ve never been here before. I’ve also never been to England. I’ll never attend Oxford. And I’d never heard of Hitchens until a couple years ago.
   It first seems to me that expecting comments made in the arena of a “fairly large” listserv to remain private is at best naive.
   Secondly, while Hitchens is certainly hawkish nowadays, it is glib to write him off as a “rightist.” I’ve not seen him embrace any form of organized religion. He’s high on personal liberties and very low on governmental prohibitions. I consider the latter to be quite liberal and not rightist.
   Perhaps I have miscontrued the remarks made above about Hitchens’s rightness. If that is the case I apologize.
   (Of course my comments are not “courteous, fresh, helpful, and to the point,” so they are worthy of deletion — quite the stringent policy you have.)

5. Don’t worry Nobrainer, in these parts (lesbian feminist NDP die-hard) Irshad Manji is considered a “far right-winger” and an “Islamophobe.”
   Anyone who imagines Hitchens ‘hacked’ Cole’s server, -or that the US is about to attack Iran militarily- needs to lay off the sauce. And photo essays of bomb victims are strictly grade school, especially coming from Cole. Wasn’t he convinced, on the eve of the Iraq war that it would “be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.”

6. You leftoids are so silly. The only way you think you can score a point on Hitchens is by going on with these alcoholic accusations. Juan Cole lifted his attack along these lines almost words for word from Saddam’s buddy George Galloway. Hitchens didn’t “steal” anything. As he explained on the radio today, someone emailed it to him. And your secret little group of nitwits had been slandering Hitchens on their discussion group. I found it amusing that someone emailed Hitchens some of the stupid things you guys say on there. Nice to see Juan Cole further exposed. Keep telling him he needs Alcoholics Anonymous – you’re only conceding he hit ya good and you’re unable to hit back in any serious manner.
   Anyway, I’ll leave you alone now. You’re obviously busy being a useful idiot for Islamic fascists.

7. Like most ranters Mr Hitchens should be ignored, after all he is only an goffer for those who wish to smear all that disagree with them. The same applies to Ahmedinijad of course, and the phrase “make smoke” comes to mind readily enough.
   What is at stake here is another war, another war nobody but the ultra rich wants, and also an opportunity for people to let them know we wont have it, after all there are no other ways or political avenues for dissent on either side of the Atlantic, just parties who ache to get their nose in the trough. Those leaving office know they’ve done their bit for the Carlyle Group et al and can look forward to a greased palm for the rest of their lives, simply for opening doors to other liars. Great system.
   One, two, three, four, we don’t want your stinking war!

8. Like most ranters Mr Hitchens should be ignored, after all he is only an goffer for those who wish to smear all that disagree with them. The same applies to Ahmedinijad of course, and the phrase “make smoke” comes to mind readily enough.
   What is at stake here is another war, another war nobody but the ultra rich wants, and also an opportunity for people to let them know we wont have it. After all there are no other ways or political avenues for dissent on either side of the Atlantic, just parties who ache to get their nose in the trough. Those leaving office know they’ve done their bit for the Carlyle Group et al and can look forward to a greased palm for the rest of their lives, simply for opening doors to other liars. Great system.
   One, two, three, four, we don’t want your stinking war!

9. A lot of people must be wondering what happened to Hitchens. The most informative article I have read about Hitchens appeared at Counterpunch. The author was a Hitchens aquaintance. Despite Hitchens public advocacy for the war this person said that in private Hitchens had many doubts about Bush’s plan.
   It doesn’t seem like Hitchens admits mistakes very easily. I noticed a certain rigidity in his writing before his “phase transition”.

10. “Mr. Brady, it is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” was how Gene Kelly put it in that great newspaper movie, Inherit the Wind.
    And what goes for a newspaper also goes for any journalist worth his (or her) salt.
    Hitchens used to afflict the comfortable. He doesn’t anymore. He’s become an ogre, an embarrassment. He’s a shill for the forces of Moloch – lower doesn’t come any more corrupt than that.
    Be interesting to know what his “conversion” has done to his sales. I suspect that his stylistic “preciousness” cuts no ice at all with the Neanderthals he’s thrown his lot in with. And he sure as hell isn’t getting any more of my dimes…or, I daresay, others of a like mind.
    Bottom line – so to speak – the incredible shrinking Hitchens is methane gas – and the accompanying sound effects – at a dinner party.
    Having shown him out and barred the door against him, let’s turn to something valuable and important and nourishing – as opposed to grotesque and embarrassing and diseased.
    Walt and Mearsheimer have replied to their critics in the latest issue of the London Review of Books. More than replied, they’ve rebutted. What they say is a model of clarity, concision, civility, intelligence, sanity, restraint (indeed, dignity) and just plain good sense.
    It’s absolutely of a piece with the best of the principled, liberating, enlightened thinking of our great Founding Fathers – Jefferson, Adams, etc. And, needless to say, it puts to shame the Defence Hysterical – aka the Dershowitz. Not to put too fine a point on it, Walt and what he represents is why I’d be happy to send my kid to Harvard; Dershowitz – advocate of torture lite, let alone the worst sort of “special pleading” – is why this family would steer clear of the place.
    Please give the LRB piece a fillip, Helena.

11. Do you have any substantive dispute with what Hitchens said (even Prof. Cole offered one, albeit weak), or are you just a Juan Cole sycophant? Lengthy “holier than thou” lectures filled with faux sympathy and tired bromides about AA are the mark of a sophomore’s blog.

12. BWUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    You socialist troglodytes are a real hoot!
    I especially liked the line:
    “For many list members, the promise of discretion for what they write is a completely necessary element of their personal security against the intrusions (and worse) of authoritarian state bodies.”
    Are you suggesting the tenth rate hack Cole is in fear of authoritarian state bodies?
    You and Cole should wave while history passes you’re inane arguments and ideas by, have a good day. 🙂

13. Cameron,
    It’s “your”, not “you’re”

14. Look, any decent person will admit that what Hitchens did to Cole (stealing & quoting his private posts) was wrong. It was sleazy. Unfortunately though, it should be no surprise to us.
    Indeed, over the years Hitchens has fallen so far, that his middle name is SLEAZE in bold-face letters.

15. I come to the Cole-Hitchens debate a day late.
    However let me say this,I have read Hitchens over the years and any one who did so regularly could see his fall into a kind of verbal masterbation that comes from a confused mind or ego…caused by drinking?.. I don’t know, my observation is that some people who have a drinking problem had a problem with themselves before they began drinking to begin with…
    Juan Cole on the other hand is clear,reasoned and knowledgeable. No one can be expected to be 100% infallible on the very fluid Iraq conflict, but in my opinion he comes closer more often than anyone else I have read to date. And since he recommended this site I shall also now be reading here for Ms. Cobban’s views.
    On the anti-semite slurring…I have lost all patience with the slurrers, all patience for tiptoeing thru a subject that every reasonable person knows is about undue influence on American “policy” by what should be registered as a ‘foreign” lobby, not about “The Jews”.
    Every time anyone speaking out with a honest concern or critism on this is slandered it makes me more outspoken and should make all Americans more outspoken. AIPAC has too much influence within congress regarding US policy…fact. Israel is as wrong and as responsible in it’s actions in occupied Palestine as the terrorist bombers are in targeting Israeli civilians…Fact.
    Everything our Israeli centric congress is doing right now to undercut a fairly elected Hamas is guarented to prevent any peace settlement and continue the same Israeli stall and tit for tat violence we have seen for the past decades…Fact.
    And anyone wanting to shut me up better come armed with more than slurs because this ridiculous slander fest going on has definitely aroused my very American “attitude”.

16. Just to note that many of the comments above (Cameron, Theo, vadim… ) clearly and in some cases knowingly violate the discourse rules we have here, whose purpose is to foster a respectful dialogue across worldviews and cultures.
    Go here to learn more about the rules.
    Some of these infractions come from first-time commenters. First-timers in particular should take two minutes to find out about the guidleines.
    Vadim, however, is a longtime commenter who should know better. I wonder why he wrote in that discourse-coarsening, name-calling way.

17. “Are you suggesting the tenth rate hack Cole is in fear of authoritarian state bodies?”
    No Cameron, she clearly mentioned and meant the contributors to that site who live in authoritarian middle eastern states. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work.
    As for Hitchens, he’s not a rightist, he’s remains what he always has been a Trotskyite. He continues to applaud the notion that spreading political idealogy at the point of a gun is a good idea. A traditional American conservative (is that a rightest? nah) scoffs at such ideas.
    Sadly, aside from Ron Paul, few traditional American conservatives are in power these days.
    Juan Cole lost it a bit with his response. If he simply pointed out he was privately discussing a translation of the speech, and wasn’t sure why that so upstet Hitchens, then his response would have been quite powerful, and amusing. As it was, he responded like a dope, which was probably all that Hitch hoped for.

18. With due respect Helena, I think you and Professor Cole are both indulging in arguments one usually associates with the Right. To wit:
    1) You say the listserv should have remained off-limits to a reporter so its members can “can all explore ideas together in a safe space without the fear that what they write for it will get quoted in the public media.” Copy that argument and paste it into any number of attempts the current administration has made to inhibit the free flow of information (Cheney’s task force, etc.). Yes, it probably was sleazy for a reporter to publish contents of the list if you had an expectation of privacy, but if you’ve been on any “private” listserv long enough you should know that such expectations are naive.
    2) Hitchens is a drunk, ergo he’s a warmonger. Is that really a sensible argument?
    At any rate, I came across your blog via Professor Cole’s post. I’m glad I found it.

19. On “the free flow of information”, the difference
    is that the the US government is accountable to
    the citizens of the US – we hired them, we can
    fire them, we pay their salaries. And the
    requirement to operate openly and subject to
    public debate and congressional oversight is
    codified in many laws.
    On the other hand, a group of private citizens
    has no such constraints or obligations to operate
    openly. Indeed, they have a right to freedom of
    association and privacy.
    The two situations are not at all comparable,
    either legally or ethically.
    It remains unclear whether Hitchens knew that
    the message had been made available to him in
    violation of the discussion group’s rules.
    But regardless of whether he’s guilty on that
    point, he’s an idiot to argue about
    interpretation of a speech in a language he
    doesn’t know. In these times we really need
    experts on the Middle East: Prof Cole is such an
    expert, Hitchens simply isn’t, and he should
    stick to talking about subjects he knows.

20. Hitchens, whom I used to admire intently, even to the point of exchanging personal correspondence, has not only turned mostly rightwing, he has stopped doing what he supposedly does as a profession: journalism.
    Here is an easy example where he has abandoned the basics of journalism — which you can do whether you’re left, right, center, or confused — you know, finding, synthesizing, and reporting FACTS. Not just rapidly typing allegations you insist that other people believe because you, BIG NAME HITCHENS, reports previously public information and pretend it’s some sort of investigation.
    Read his quotes and high-horsed accusations below, and ask yourself one simple question: at what point did Christopher Hitchens, noted JOURNALIST, actually present any evidence he gathered to support a point?
    In Slate and in interviews Hitchens has been screaming that we’ve all ignored one of Hitchens’ GIANT discoveries: in 1999, Iraq sent its former ambassador to the Vatican and perhaps IAEA representative to Niger.
    In a radio interview Hitch said:
    ————————————
    Hitchens: …in case your listeners don’t all know this, and WHAT I’VE ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, is that a man named Wissam Zawahie, Saddam Hussein’s chief diplomat for nuclear matters, he’d been Iraq’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, he’d been its delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the U.N., senior point man on nukes, went, on February 9, 1999, to Niger. Now I’m sorry. I cannot be brought to believe that he went there to discuss the price of goats or ground nuts. Niger and its president testified, was reported as testifying to, I think, the 9/11 Commission. No one ever comes here, save for, I think, yellowcake uranium. That’s all we’ve got. Now Wilson’s book, ridiculous book, called The Politics Of Truth, does not mention the name Wissam Zawahie in this connection. He says he knows the man from Baghdad, but that’s in another connection entirely. He appears to have never understood that this had happened. So the value of his mission, as a means of ruling out an Iraq connection to Niger, is not even nil. It’s less than nil. A positive threat to national security. It’s a man who didn’t even try to find if there was a threat coming up, and who missed something very conspicuous, and who has been, I have to…can’t mince words, simply lying his head off about it ever since.
    ————————————
    In Slate he wrote:
    ————————————
    In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington.
    ————————————
    and also later he wrote:
    ————————————
    Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week’s Slate to the effect that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger.
    …And it’s true that the two men {Al-Zawahie and Joe Wilson] knew each other during the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.
    ————————————
    So, if it isn’t too rude to ask the great Christopher Hitchens, journalist and investigator *extraordinaire*, JUST WHAT DID AL-ZAHAWIE DO IN NIGER?
    Does he actually have any evidence? If so, he must have forgotten to print it, because so far, all he can do is prove what was already 100% publicly available information — that an Iraqi official in 1999 visited Niger, and then suggest by evidence-free insinuation that it simply MUST have been about an absurd purchase of Nigeri uranium by Iraq.

21. Who have I called names? I was defending Irshad Manji from names she was called by Henry James (“far right winger”, “Islamophobe.”). I noticed you had nothing to say then. That’s a pity, because Manji is someone whose opinions I respect greatly. My apologies for not being more clear.
    Re: Cole’s opinions on the war: since when was he against it? I have yet to see him disavow the remark I cited, or many others in that vein. And photo essays of the sort we find in his ‘rebuttal’ are nothing but coarse propaganda.
    The conversation would be more interesting all around if the ad hominems (like “drunk”) were left out of it. TT’s initial post is right on target.

22. Vadim is correct, Cole was hardly anti-Iraq invasion. Yet i think he posted those photos to get support against invading Iran. I imagine the point being, these sorts of things aren’t worth it to remove the Mullas. I tend to agree, but i felt they weren’t worth it to remove Saddam.
    Cole was wrong about Iraq, he should admit it, but it has very little to do with the current swipe at him from Hitchens.

23. Well, I glanced at Chris’s piece. It is mainly a nasty hatchet-job against Juan– blessedly, quite short. Juan does a superb job of refuting it.
    You’re kidding, right? Juan managed to do everything BUT refute Hitchen’s central point, which is that Juan had been 1) mistranslating and 2) ignoring various bits of the speech by Ahmadinejad. In fact, Juan’s “response” is rather illiterate on that point: He accuses Hitchens of “blam[ing] me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini,” when Hitchens did no such thing. Hitchens merely quoted the rest of the speech by Ahmadinejad, and then observed that Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeini.

24. ‘Well, I glanced at Chris’s piece. It is mainly a nasty hatchet-job against Juan– blessedly, quite short. Juan does a superb job of refuting it.’
    You’re kidding, right? Juan managed to do everything BUT refute Hitchen’s central point, which is that Juan had been 1) mistranslating and 2) ignoring various bits of the speech by Ahmadinejad. In fact, Juan’s “response” is rather illiterate on that point: He accuses Hitchens of “blam[ing] me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini,” when Hitchens did no such thing. Hitchens merely quoted the rest of the speech by Ahmadinejad, and then observed that Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeini.
    Posted by Thurmond at May 4, 2006 11:03 AM
    —————————————-
    Did you even read what Cole said? If so, how could you make such a pointless post?
    Juan Cole’s point was that Christopher Hitchens did not, in fact, could not have “quoted the rest of the speech by Ahmadinejad…”
    Ahmadinejad was speaking in Farsi. Hitchens was quoting an English language translation. Cole was arguing that the translation was faulty. Someone is right, someone is wrong.
    But it was simply impossible for Hitchens to directly quote Ahmadinejad if Cole is correct that Hitchens doesn’t speak Farsi.
    So the technical question remains: what did Ahmadinejad say and what does it mean?
    Translation errors are important. At this past weekend’s White House Correspondent’s Association dinner, President Bush stood up with his cute double and had the double say “Laura [the first lady] is hot,” whereas Bush Jr. replied “Muy caliente.”
    And although “caliente” does literally mean in Spanish “hot,” and although in English the phrase “hot” when applied to a woman means “very attractive,” in Spanish when you call a woman “caliente” it means that she’s sexually ready to reproduce, very much like an animal in heat.
    So did George W. Bush this past weekend declare that his wife was rutting? Well, literally, yes, but that’s not what he presumably intended.

25. It’s a mountatin out of a molehill moment. Nice.
    The funny part, to me, is that Hitchens invalidates his own original post by noting that Iran’s President is a “puppet figure with no real power.”
    Everything after that is fluff, b.s., and personal attacks.
    Also, does anyone else find it funny that a puppet from a non-nuclear state is threatening a nuclear state with annihilation (or whatever Persion idiom)?

26. Hitchens is just a fool.
    He thought he could push his idiology (which is old school left)through the new school neo-fascist neo-cons. He was wrong. Neo-conservativism is even more discredited than Lafler and his curve, but Hitchens CHOSE to ignore that.
    Then, unfortunately for us all, the neo-cons fucked up big-time, again.
    Hitchens had two choices:
    1. Admit he was wrong, and that his ideological buddies were just as bad and arrogant and criminal as his old nemesis Kissinger.
    2. Stick with his ideology, no matter what reality presented him.
    He, as we all now know, chose the latter and has been forced into a very unenviable position. He now has to defend his ideology in a vacuum.
    This contradictory position that he has PUT HIMSELF IN has resulted in his alcoholism (remember: he’s the cheerleader for genocide at this point) and in his unreasonable attacks on people that point out “reality”, which reminds him of his own internal conflicts.
    It such a shame that Juan Cole is the butt of Hitchens madness though. Juan was one of the first ‘reality’ based blogger and academics working on the Middle East. Without his dedication and hardwork many of us wouldn’t know a Sunni from a Shia. Actually, this is part of Hitchens conceit.
    Hitchens realizes that any reader of Cole will immediatly see through his attacks. It’s in that respect we can really see how far gone Hitchens is. He using a bully pulpit to make an example of a (fairly) obscure academic, to push his own war-monering.
    Only if the US starts removing other dictators and replacing them with representative democracies can Hitchens sleep soundly. And he, like te rest of us, knows this will never happen. So the best shot he has is ‘freeing’ Iran. Attacking Iran would “prove” that ‘it’s not about Iraq’ but instead about Democracy, or so he thinks.
    In reality though Hitchens is too far gone to realize that the same stupidity and greed and arrogance that infected the Iraq debacle with infect any Iranian war. Which is lose/lose for Hitchens, which is sad.
    The Blogosphere should be as a whole defending Cole. Do your part, read his blog, defend him to the end, and pity Hitchens.

27. Ahmadinejad was speaking in Farsi. Hitchens was quoting an English language translation. Cole was arguing that the translation was faulty. Someone is right, someone is wrong.
    Now you’re the one who’s kidding, right? If Cole wanted to argue that the translation was wrong, he had every opportunity to offer us the correct translation. Instead, all he can do is 1) whine that his email was published, 2) call Hitchens a drunk, 3) publish inflammatory and irrelevant photos, etc. If Hitchens’ translation is wrong, why can’t Cole use just a bit of his vaunted expertise to offer up the correct translation? (Hint: If Cole knew of a better translation, he wouldn’t have to spend so much time blowing smoke.)

28. Here is something to be trully outraged by, instead of defending an intellectual fraud and hack like Cole.
    Leading Intellectual Detained
    Front spokesman Saeed Shariati told Iran’s Student News Agency (ISNA) that the group has also expressed concern about the detention of leading scholar and author Ramin Jahanbegloo, and called on authorities to release information about his situation.
    Jahanbegloo, who also holds Canadian citizenship, was reportedly arrested late last week after returning from a trip to India. Jahanbegloo, the head of the department for contemporary studies at Tehran’s Cultural Research Bureau, has published several books on such subjects as liberal political philosopher Isaiah Berlin and modernity in Iran.
    Check it out

29. yes.
    Ahmadinejad was saying that ‘Over time the nation of Israel will collapse… that’s just history… and history will support our belief… eventually’.
    Actually he was using a quote from Khomeni to make that point.
    Hitchens is saying that Ahmadinejad was in FACT saying that ‘ISRAEL MUST be WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!’
    That’s not a small difference.
    Juan is pointing out that it seems that, as before Gulf War 2, the pro-war people are completely twisting the facts to suit their goals and that this is very eerily similar.

30. yes.
    Ahmadinejad was saying that ‘Over time the nation of Israel will collapse… that’s just history… and history will support our belief… eventually’.
    Actually he was using a quote from Khomeni to make that point.
    Hitchens is saying that Ahmadinejad was in FACT saying that ‘ISRAEL MUST be WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!’
    That’s not a small difference.
    Juan is pointing out that it seems that, as before Gulf War 2, the pro-war people are completely twisting the facts to suit their goals and that this is very eerily similar.

31. Wow, Cameron, if you’re the same one that posted earlier…you are a fool of amazing proportions….
    The earlier Cameron wrote…Are you suggesting the tenth rate hack Cole is in fear of authoritarian state bodies?
    And the later Cameron wrote…Jahanbegloo, who also holds Canadian citizenship, was reportedly arrested late last week after returning from a trip to India. Jahanbegloo, the head of the department for contemporary studies at Tehran’s Cultural Research Bureau, has published several books on such subjects as liberal political philosopher Isaiah Berlin and modernity in Iran.
    Now….if..say…someone like Jahanbegloo was on the list…you think…maybe…they might not want comments to said list to become public?
    …an intellectual fraud and hack like Cole.
    Keep saying it, and eventually the fools will believe you. Pardon, as you use the word ‘hack’…who is paying Cole to argue for peace?

32. Now you’re the one who’s kidding, right? If Cole wanted to argue that the translation was wrong, he had every opportunity to offer us the correct translation.
    Posted by Thurmond at May 4, 2006 11:36 AM
    ——————————————-
    You’re not kidding, you’re just lazy. The following is directly from Juan Cole’s website, in which he reproduces his e-mailed exchange, within which in detail he discusses the translation of the crucial phrase.
    But you don’t know, you don’t care, or both.
    Make whatever disagreement you want, maybe Cole’s 100% wrong, but unlike your posts, his arguments are at least germane to the discussion.
    (By the way– feel free to correct Cole by referring to the original Farsi, URL below.)
    ——————————————-
    http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
    Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:34:18 -0400 From: “Cole, Juan”
    The speech in Persian is here:
    http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
    Sorry that I misremembered the exact phrase Ahmadinejad had used. He made an analogy to Khomeini’s determination and success in getting rid of the Shah’s government, which Khomeini had said “must go” (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.
    The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
    Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
    Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
    Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.
    I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.
    It is not realistic for Americans to call for Iran to talk directly to the Israeli government (though in the 1980s the Khomeinists did a lot of business with Israel) when the US government won’t talk directly to the Iranians about most bilateral issues. In fact, an American willingness to engage in direct talks might well pave the way to an eventual settlement of these outstanding issues.
    cheers
    Juan Cole

33. yes.
    Ahmadinejad was saying that ‘Over time the nation of Israel will collapse… that’s just history… and history will support our belief… eventually’.
    Actually he was using a quote from Khomeni to make that point.
    Hitchens is saying that Ahmadinejad was in FACT saying that ‘ISRAEL MUST be WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!’
    That’s not a small difference.
    Juan is pointing out that it seems that, as before Gulf War 2, the pro-war people are completely twisting the facts to suit their goals and that this is very eerily similar.

34. Found in a dumpster behind the University of Michigan College of Liberal Arts: the first draft of Professor Juan Cole’s latest cri de coeur
    Juan Cole, the First Draft

35. Why I had not thought of that, you are correct wah being a faculty member here in the States is very much like being a faculty member in Iran.
    Hahahahaha 😀

36. Hey Cameron,
    You and Iowahawk should grab a beer with Hitchens and have a big laugh at all the blood on your hands.

37. No one comes off good in this, as you realize. The unfortunate thingis that Hitchens made a mistake and Cole countered with his own. The debate thus becomes muddled in insults and speculation; people who could be convinced are lead astray.

38. hello HC,
    today at my blog – http://blogtrack.livejournal.com – will be a blog in which you feature. Because lj don’t allow blogrolls, on my other recent blog – http://qboyk.blogspot.com – I have started a blogroll of folks referred to. If you take a look at blogtrack I think you’ll find it accurate and fair. If not, please let me know and I won’t assume it’s ok to blogroll you. Blogtrack has been going a wee while and is now gaining readership which of course advantages folks mentioned..
    with best wishes,
    norman john

39. The crux of the issue is the translation and this seems to have gotten lost in the rhetoric. I remember Khruschev pounding on the table with his shoe and the American public’s reaction to his “We will bury you statement”. Countless schools started weekly “duck and cover” practice drills, anticipating Soviet missiles on the horizon. (With Cuba, this is not as farfetched as today’s overheated polemic)
    Judging from Iranian television, the Iranians seem receptive to some sort of negotiations, maybe along the lines of N. Korea’s negotiations.
    The current hot button issue in the Middle East is Hamas and the Palestinian question. While the American public is diverted by this fatuous twaddle over what Ahmadinejad did or did not say. In reaction to Hamas’ election, Israel is withholding receipts that belong to the PA. In addition, the US and EU have reduced or cut off aid to the PA. It seems we will coerce the Palestinians into rejecting Hamas or else have them die.

40. “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” (Ahmadinejad)
    Hitchens did us the favour allowing Juan to remind many of us what the correct translation of Ahmadinejad’s infamous sentence is, and to oppose the distorted translation usually spread by warmongers and uninformed journalists who echo the warmongers’ propaganda.
    Bad things can turn positive …
    It was also new information for me that Hitchens is a drunkard. I don’t feel sorry for this outing. This thief gets what he deserves.
    I’ve read Juan Cole’s blog daily for more than three years now. A poster here wrote: There has been nobody who has had it right or almost right so often like Juan.
    A streak of good anticipation indicactes expertise and competence.
    Compare that with Hitchens … although, I admit, to be so horribly wrong all the time like Hitchens is maybe not due to drinking. The neocons aren’t all drunkards, so there must be additional reason for their remarkable blindness for sober reality.
    This reason? I dare to suggest: A combination of idealism and arrogance of power might result in kind of a rush. We had that once in Germany, too … you know what I mean. The outcome was ultimately desastrous.

41. Our host writes that:
    “Hitchens, it goes without saying, is currently part of the rightwing crowd in the US that is baying for some form of large military attack against Iran. Juan, by contrast, is extremely strongly against any such attack … Indeed, the main portion of his first rebuttal of Hitchens was a pained plea for the US not to launch a war against Iran.”
    Unfortunately for this point, Hitchens has written an article in slate as calling for dialogue with Iran, and comes out against war.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
    Oh well. Just the ramblings of someone who ought to be in AA, right?

42. Our host writes that:
    Hitchens, it goes without saying, is currently part of the rightwing crowd in the US that is baying for some form of large military attack against Iran. Juan, by contrast, is extremely strongly against any such attack … Indeed, the main portion of his first rebuttal of Hitchens was a pained plea for the US not to launch a war against Iran.
    Unfortunately for this point, Hitchens is on record as calling for dialogue with Iran, and comes out against war.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
    Oh well, just the ramblings of someone who should be in AA right?

43. chris o’brien you should meet your maker with all the blood that is on Saddam’s hands, and all the blood that would have been on his hands, if it were not for those who are better than yourself.
    Good luck with that.

44. Now you’re the one who’s kidding, right? If Cole wanted to argue that the translation was wrong, he had every opportunity to offer us the correct translation.
    Posted by: Thurmond at May 4, 2006 11:36 AM
    Thurmond, get your foot out of your mouth, Cole’s refutation to Hitchens includes his final translation. If you’d actually read Cole’s piece, (skimming doesn’t count) you’d have seen it. In fact, this post indicates you don’t have a solid grasp of this issue at all: Hitchens used an incomplete draft of Cole’s translation to critisize, and in his refutation, Cole posted the final draft. The whole point of this fight is that Cole challenged the Wire Service translation of the speech, and Hitchens inexplicably takes the Wire Service translation as gospel and dismisses Cole’s listserv vetted effort.
    BTW, in case no one has mentioned this either, Cole has retracted his support for the Iraq war. Like John Kerry, he supported the war because he believed the President was telling the truth. If you read his site regularly, you’d see Cole’s progression from “This war is sadly necessary” to “The administration is doing a terrible job running this campaign” to “Oh, it was based on lies and was a complete mistake”
    This is called sanity. Changing ones views based on new information and a changing situation. Cole was wrong about Iraq because he believed the lies at the time. Lots of people did. The really sad part, is the number of people (some evidenced here no doubt) who still do, despite a mountain of evidence. They call this “flip-flopping.” I once believed in Santa Claus too, but I have flip-flopped because I am (or espouse to be) a rational adult.

45. “Unfortunately for this point, Hitchens is on record as calling for dialogue with Iran, and comes out against war.”
    That’s what he says NOW. Unfortunately, for those of us who’ve followed Hitch’s bizarro world ideological trajectory these last 10-15 years, you can never know when Hitch will turn right around and change his mind (and then claim he said the same thing all along!)

46. sandrahn writes:
    “Unfortunately for this point, Hitchens is on record as calling for dialogue with Iran, and comes out against war.”
    ____
    That’s what he says NOW. Unfortunately, for those of us who’ve followed Hitch’s bizarro world ideological trajectory these last 10-15 years, you can never know when Hitch will turn right around and change his mind (and then claim he said the same thing all along!)
    Yes, but anyone can change their mind. Professor Cole could change his mind. An early comment charts his change of mind with regard to the Iraq war with time. So, what’s your point?
    Mine was simply that when Ms. Cobban implies that Mr. Hitchens is “obviously” part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to sound the drums for war with Iran, it might be nice to actually look to see whether he has written anything about the matter that might support this. Turns out he has. He says he is opposed to war with Iran.
    Although I suspect that some would propose that this is merely clever cover for his warmongering. Or something.
    Sun’s over the yardarm…ta!

47. I found this site via Juan Cole and welcome the defence you have made of his comments following Hitchen’s articles. Like some others here, I was an admirer of Hitchen’s earlier work, but over the past few years, he has lost the plot and become little more than a hack- a shadow of what he once was, but I agree, there was always a degree of bluster in his writing, and it seems that has become his dominant position.
    Was Cole right to draw attention to his drinking ? It seems Hitchens was quite happy to heckle him in a far from sober state- so he obviously saw nothing to hide about the matter. But is also stikes me as odd that Cole can be attacked for using his drinking as an ad hominem attack and also be accused of being niave of hoping the contents of this site would remain private. By the same argument, should not Hitchens not be suprised if his drunken antics become public knowledge, or is he equally niave too ? It would lend weight to the argument that Coles made, that is has seriously distorted his judgement and it’s not as if Hitchens isn’t partial to ad hominem attacks in the absense of any credible argument is it ?
    I note also the MEMRI (hardly a supporter of Cole) have also translated the text in much the same way- can we expect Hitch to wade in and attack them too ?
    I think it is a sign of Hitchen’s lack of judgement that he attacks Cole’s translation of a language he has no facility in himself. I have often wondered why he attacks liberal arts proffessors, and not liberal economists such as Brad deLong or Paul Krugman. I think is comes down to bluster- he can make ad hominem attacks on people such as Cole and hope the fools (witness some here) will think he is some authority on the subject- much harder to do that with a more Scientific subject and where is would be quickly established that you have no authority or comprehension of the deeper issues you pertain to comment on. I have seen this so many times from right wingers- they do a ‘bit of research’ on the internet and think they are experts overnight (Cameron, par excellance seems to endorse this with his comment “the tenth rate hack Cole”). That’s not something you can pull off with more Scientific subjects unless you truly have a deep understanding- and accounts for why the right prefer their attacks to be on those in the liberal arts.
    I do wonder how much some of the Hitchens appologists here have read his writings- perhaps they think good writing is 90% bluster and rant and 10% weak content- it’s obvious a standard they are anxious to emulate- and with even less success than Hitchens can muster.

48. It seems obvious to me that Hitchens simply isn’t a very bright political writer. There are baselines for this that are ideologically neutral. One of them is to be able to simply represent an opposite viewpoint. You can and should vigorously criticize it, but you need to have some preliminary grasp of it before you do so. If you cannot do that, then you cannot analyze that viewpoint at all. It is like trying to analyze a blurry snapshot.
    Over the past three years, in his column on Slate, Hitchens has seemingly never understood the anti-war position. He hasn’t understood the figures in it, or their various influences within the anti-war ranks; he hasn’t understood their arguments; he hasn’t even understood — even now — the delegitimating effect of supporting misleading or false information to support a course of action, however moral you find it.
    Now, it isn’t necessary to have that cold, assessing quality if you merely want to generate propaganda. And evidently, that is Hitchens forte. But I think he sincerely thinks he is actually make acute, intelligent remarks. However: how could one trust a person’s assessment of, say, Iraq, when the same person repeatedly caricatures, misrepresents, and in other ways simply can’t understand, something as simple as the anti-war position in the U.S. and the U.K.?
    This is a person whose forecasting skills are so bad that he: predicted Osama bin Laden was dead; predicted Ahmed Chalabi would be a popular politician in Iraq; predicted that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops; predicted that Iraq would start a democratic revolution in the Middle East; and all of the rest of it. He has got nothing right, so far, but every wrong call has increased his belligerance. I could care less about his alcohol intake. I do care about his intellectual intoxication, his addiction to his own self-importance, rather than any quasi-rational standard. That’s the addiction that kills.

49. Lyagushka, MERMI has the same interpretation as Cole? Not so, what a load of hooey by you apologists for the theocrats in Iran who are oppressing their own people, and threatening the peace in the region. To all you socialist troglodytes the United States is the greatest threat in the world. You are opposed to free market economies not based on facts but based on your ill informed ideology that you hold to be true despite the history of oppression and misery created by these ideas. Inconvenient fact, democratic nations with free market economies have provided the greatest prosperity to the greatest number of people in the history of the planet. Socialism has been refuted not just intellectually read Misses but every single place you troglodytes have had success in implementing it.

50. Dan D — have you read the Hitchens piece?
    Fact 1: In his prior email, Cole offered a translation of a single sentence: “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
    Fact 2: Cole claims that this merely means that Israel should stop occupying any part of Jerusalem, just as Sharon stopped occupying Gaza.
    Fact 3: Hitchens used a translation that said “wiped off the map,” and Cole countered with his same translation (“vanish from the page of time”).
    Fact 4. Hitchens ALSO pointed to several OTHER remarks that are completely consistent with wanting to destroy and eliminate Israel: “Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. . . . For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it. . . .If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill.”
    Fact 5: Hitchens claimed that “Professor Cole has completely missed or omitted the first reference in last October’s speech, skipped to the second one, and flatly misunderstood the third. (The fourth one, about ‘eliminating the occupying regime,’ I would say speaks for itself.)”
    Fact 6: Cole offers ABSOLUTELY NO REBUTTAL to Hitchens’ claims here. He doesn’t offer another translation for phrases like “eliminating the occupying regime.” He doesn’t even try.
    Conclusion: Anyone who says that Cole “refuted” Hitchens doesn’t even comprehend that there’s more to the debate than the single phrase “wiped off the map.”

51. Wow, Cameron, if you’re the same one that posted earlier…you are a fool of amazing proportions….
    The earlier Cameron wrote…Are you suggesting the tenth rate hack Cole is in fear of authoritarian state bodies?
    And the later Cameron wrote…Jahanbegloo, who also holds Canadian citizenship, was reportedly arrested late last week after returning from a trip to India. Jahanbegloo, the head of the department for contemporary studies at Tehran’s Cultural Research Bureau, has published several books on such subjects as liberal political philosopher Isaiah Berlin and modernity in Iran.
    Now….if..say…someone like Jahanbegloo was on the list…you think…maybe…they might not want comments to said list to become public?
    …an intellectual fraud and hack like Cole.
    Keep saying it, and eventually the fools will believe you. Pardon, as you use the word ‘hack’…who is paying Cole to argue for peace?

52. Wow, wah you really excel at straw men arguments. Hitch did not expose any one except for Cole for being an intellectual fraud, but hey you would rather not address that issue or the issue of real oppression currently going on in Iran. You would rather go on about what if hypothetically he had exposed some one else. Is that the best you can do?

53. Sorry for the double post…did a refresh when I got back home.
    Didn’t mean to feed the troll any more (socialists?!).
    Not much new here, other than the fact that Cole’s translation seems to be closer to the fact.
    BTW, Hitch was on Hugh Hewitt today and mentioned that, uh, “stone cold sober” was a joke…and he HAS to have a drink or two to celebrate every finished column. Also, Hitch mentioned that Cole knew no history and was, in fact, illiterate. Quite a feat to get a job as a history professor with those qualities, but Juan seems like a heck of a guy.

54. Oh well, still no substantive arguments from you wah? And ya socialists, that is what you guys are.

55. Cameron,
    You are aware that America is a socialist state, correct? You say; ‘Socialism has been refuted not just intellectually read Misses but every single place you troglodytes have had success in implementing it.’ so why did our Supreme Court just reaffirm socialism in the Kelo v. New London case? They recognized that socialism is written in our Constitution. If you use the toilet in your house, you are a socialist. Water? Supplied by the water department, a socialist organization. The federal highway system? Sorry, that is a socilaist program, and a highly successful one. The most successful socialist program in America’s history? The G.I. bill, where the population of America was forced to pay (with taxes) for the college educations of the few as a ‘reward’. That IS ‘socailism’. America is benefiting from that program to this day, because the more educated a society is, the more successful.
    It might be better if you read at least a LITTLE history before you post. Socilaism has been HUGELY successful in America.
    .

56. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha you’re a funny guy Warren pathetic but funny.

57. Although I suspect that some would propose that this is merely clever cover for his warmongering. Or something.
    Sun’s over the yardarm…ta!
    Posted by: Al Anon at May 4, 2006 05:19 PM
    Actually, those of us that can read (and I do read Hitchens for the train-wreck qualities of his current manifestation) can also safely say that Hitchen’s ‘dialogue with Iran’ column is disingenous as hell, and is a fig-leaf that he will quickly discard when necessary. It’s so full of outs for his alleged ‘position’ that he will have no trouble disavowing it in favor of military action when the time comes.
    Cameron wins some kind of smelly obtuse troll award. It’s stunning.

58. Everyone is making this too complicated. Hitchens himself tells us that he is fabricating a controversy.
    Cole (from e-mail): The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
    Hitchens: “Quite possibly, “wiped off the map” is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said….”
    In other words, Hitchens conceded that Cole was right, then attacked him anyway.
    This is not complicated, people. The goal of ad hominem is to get people so upset that they stop thinking.
    This has succeeded. Almost everyone who has commented on this issue has failed to notice the fact that Hitchens has already admitted that Cole is correct.

59. Everyone is making this too complicated. Hitchens himself tells us that he is fabricating a controversy.
    Cole (from e-mail): The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
    Hitchens: “Quite possibly, “wiped off the map” is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said….”
    In other words, Hitchens conceded that Cole was right, then attacked him anyway.
    This is not complicated, people. The goal of ad hominem is to get people so upset that they stop thinking.
    This has succeeded. Almost everyone who has commented on this issue has failed to notice the fact that Hitchens has already admitted that Cole is correct.

60. Who reads Slate anyway?

61. Hitchens: “Quite possibly, “wiped off the map” is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said….”
    
    Problem for your interpretation: You ignore the paragraphs that Hitchens wrote next. Clearly, Hitchens’ overall point was “this may be slightly too free a translation, but there is no doubt that the reference is to the total destruction of Israel, which means that Cole is full of BS when he claims that the quote merely means that they want Israel to withdraw from Gaza.”
    Again, Cole does not and evidently cannot rebut this point. All he can do is claim that the literal translation is “remove from the pages of time.”
    Well, idioms obviously differ in English and Persian, but the meaning here seems to be quite similar. “Wipe off the map” and “remove from the pages of time” both seem to have exactly the same intent: To obliterate Israel such that it might as well have never existed.
    

62. Just in passing, it is widely supposed that Chris Hitchens was the meodel for the drunk\journalist Peter Fallows in
    “Bonfire of the Vanities”.
    http://www.reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.shtml

63. Noticing the admonishment to posters and “newcomers” just below my “newcomer” comment I assume it was directed at my comment also.
    Let me say that at this point in our democracy I have no use for censorship in any way except for obvious pointlessness and profanity.
    And while the I appreciate the opinions of ‘experts’, nothing is served regarding the interest of this country in not calling spades spades and not exposing or ferreting out the “intent” and “motivations’ of the people in the “media” or the “blogshpere” who distract from the heart of the issues by attacking others.
    In my opinion they deserve a sivler bullet or else totally ignoring.
    At some point “academica” either takes off the gloves in truth telling or it is useless to anyone except as fodder for academics. Cole seems more headed in that direction so I will stick to his site.
    ciao

64. Carroll, I wonder if you read the guidelines for particiapnts in the discussions here? I instituted them in order to keep the space here safe for discussion of differences in a friendly, problem-solving manner, that’s all.
    This is a globally intercultural discussion, and we can all learn how to take part in such a discussion without engaging in namecalling of the pointlessly childish and hostile type used by Cameron “ya socialist troglodytes”, etc.
    Cameron, can you please re-read the guidelines. And if you can’t behave in a courteous fashion here, then adios to you.

65. I think I’ve made my point more than clear to you Helena. Instead of addressing the substantive points raised by Hitchens, you made an accusation meant to discredit him. Do you deny being a socialist or do you deny that being a socialist makes one a troglodyte? I can do make a much better defense for my remarks then you can for yours. Ban me Helena, I’ve accomplished what I set out to accomplish. Your hypocrisy must be obvious to even you.
    Good bye Helena

66. فالنظام الإيراني الحالي ومنذ إستلامه لمقاليد السلطة في إيران عام 1979 لم يشكل في يوم من الأيام خطراً أو تهديداً حقيقياً على إسرائيل والمصالح الأمريكية في المنطقة ورغم نعته لأمريكا بالشيطان الأكبر الذي تخرج تظاهرات صلاة جُمعة الجامعة الإيرانية إسبوعياً ومنذ عقدين للتنديد به ورغم نعت أمريكا له بأحد محاور الشر إلا أن المتتبع لطبيعة العلاقة بين البلدين يرى بأنها طبيعية وهادئة منذ ذلك اليوم طبعاً بإستثناء بعض التصريحات النارية التي يتبادلها الطرفان بين الحين والآخر للإستهلاك المحلي وللتغطية على ماتحت السطح
    http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N05_05_14.html

67. Dear Helena Cobban,
    “Yes, for a long time Chris Hitchens did have a glib facility with words, though I wouldn’t go as far as to describe him as ever having been, “one of our great men of letters”. Juan overdoes the lapsarian aspect of Chris’s career trajectory quite a bit there.”
    If I am reading this correctly Juan Cole was saying that Hitchen’s was at one time a great man of letters, that is, before his fall. That would make the period before the fall “pre-lapsarian” rather than lapsarian.
    Indeed I thought that the period after the Garden of Eden was viewed as after the fall, hence lapsarian.
    John Gagnon

68. http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3264419.htm

69. http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3264419.htm

70. 2006-05-03 On fighting Hitchens

71. John G– well, I’m assuming the “lapse” (the professional free-fall) was from a certain height, and also that it took place over time… If there wasn’t so much height to start with, then the lapse couldn’t have been so great, eh?

72. 2006-05-07 On Mr.Hitchens and “Christ killing”

73. Modeling the ME conflict – ver. 1.1
    2006-05-07 Did Inquisition kill Christ?

Comments are closed.