My “vitrolic” comment was directed at Scott’s, “there are times when in your face denouncement is the only acceptable response to some sets of beliefs.” I think I was clear about that. Islamic totalitarianism, or Islamism, or jihadism, or whatever you want to call it upholds values that Scott (I assume) finds revolting. This is why I said that he has nothing to learn from his fellow “League” members who go out of their way not to denounce it, for example, trying to get us to believe that Islamists are nationalist freedom-fighters–against all evidence to the contrary.

I hope that ED Kain doesn’t find this too “vitriolic” for his tastes. Although I question his standards for saying so since he just called Hitchens a stupid drunk for no reason at all. Oh, wait. That must be some kind of sober analysis of the situation, not “spewing vitriol,” which is only done by those who disagree with ED Kain.

Michael: you’re quite welcome, thanks for the fascinating piece!

E.D.: I see where you’re coming from, which I was I threw in the “perhaps not against armed militants in Beruit” quip. But you do have to admire Hitchen’s chutzpah, he’s a man who really lives by his principles and that is sadly rare in this day and age. What I think I most took away from the story was to wonder about where the logical conclusions of my beliefs are and how far I’m willing to go in upholding them. Would be an interesting experiment for more of us to engage in.

Also, it brings up the question about whether in some cases force must be met with force. But I don’t have a dog in that race… no not at all ;)

Michael: if I can tempt you back, as someone who was present, how did you feel about Hitch’s actions?

Thanks for the link, Scott.

Did you notice that the Hitchens incident was about Islam and Islamic extremism? How in the world was I twisting this thing into a denunciation of Islamic extremism if that was what it was about in the first place.

there are times when in your face denouncement is the only acceptable response to some sets of beliefs.

In that regard, I still have a lot to learn from my more rhetorically pugilistic friends at the League.

Hitchens has been denouncing Islamic totalitarianism for many years–and has been villified for it on the left. This incident was only one example. In other words, if you are looking for “some sets of beliefs” to denounce, they’ve been staring you in the face for decades.

In that regard, as you put it, I don’t thing you have anything to learn from your “friends at the League.” They are usually ready to appease Islamic totalitarianism by labeling it “nationalistic” against all evidence and reasoning (i.e., “freedom fighters”) like Chris Dierkes. And so forth.

So ED Kain thinks Hitchens was drunk. Shame! Along with his politically incorrect denunciations of Islamic totalitarianism, he sins by not being sober 24/7, like, one assumes, ED Kain is. Well, ED Kain, not everyone accepts your puritan virtues as god’s law. Drunk or not, I can imagine how Hitchens felt seeing swastikas displayed openly on the street. I can imagine how Chris Dierkes and ED Kain would have felt, too: they’d be saying “those aren’t swastikas! The SSNP is a nationalist group, which has been generated by US meddling in the area. Etc Etc.