The West's favorite ailing lily -white atheist unceremoniously chimes in on the recent Koran burning. In this critique we determine who is the greater of two fucktards. The virulent actions of two mentally-ill religious figureheads instigating holy war. Or Hitchens and his lilac-scented, misinformed and atypically dry assessment of "what the deal is".
In Hitchen's first paragraph he not only terribly mucks up a flowery analogy of Heine's Almansor (which no one has read or cares about), but he yet again drums up the holocaust as a valid comparison to this current incarnation of "Islamo-Facism". This not only fails to hit the nail on the head, but it does so with an object about as blunt or as powerful as a silk sock filled used condoms & wet band aids. The thesis is fucked at the on set: The notion that all the violence and anti-western sentiment is based on pure religious zealotry. Refusing to address that it is economic disparity brought on by the sheer lunacy of western foreign policy makes so him out of touch with reality that I kinda wish I was a 'shroom dealer. Dumb fuck would put my grand-children through college.
Then, out of what I can only assume to be pure nerve, Hitchen's goes on to assert that Jones would only "probably refrain" from burning actual people in name of his God. Really? Dude, are you sure you're not Christian? Listen, Jones' act was just as incendiary as Karzai's reaction because he knew what the effect would be. It's this weird western-euro moral equivalancy bullshit that reduces what are *supposed* to be our brightest minds into stiff lipped, prim-babies who- when confronted with the stupidity of "their side" dare to opine that- oh- you can't possibly think we are bad because we hide our inner lack of ethics under a venier of 1950's manners and nicety. It seems at this point that these types of people are out of touch with the ill intentions of others, that the one not hiding it and appearing the most brazen in their rancour is clearly the worst offender. As far as I'm concerned, Karzai's approach was to merely quell the majority of his base who are disenfranchised first and zealots second.
And this is my point: It should no longer bear repetition or note when rabid islamo-fundies -in Afganistan- call for the heads of 22,000 Danes in exchange for one torched Koran (which, I don't even think happened). Religion is the mechanism used to build political indignation (and yeah, fair enough: militarize) a vast population of people who have been raped by the baked turd of western foreign and economic policy. Making religion the focal point cheapens the conflict for both sides. Jones' Koran burning puts the blood of the 20 people burned on his hands just as much as Karzai's.
This says to me that our situation with our religious fundamentalists actually isn't too far off from the Middle East and this is *despite* our religious freedoms. When some white southern paster goes stirring up shit under the guise of a freedom exercise, you might want to start doing more than treating this as nothing more than the inane production of a retard and start looking at it as a sign for things to come (in America). Play around with all the comparative ethics you want. What Jones' did paid dividends.
On the other hand, Hitchens play-by-play here does nothing but gives license to the idea that even when it comes down to our religious holy-war aping psychopaths, we are in fact "better than them." -- The suggestion of which is nothing more than fuel for burning minds of young, angry and disenfranchised Islamic youth. Hitchens: Yet another example of some old baby boomer fuck simply not getting it and recycling misinformation designed for a purely emotive response. Hey old man, if you're gonna lay there in the throes of deathbed detachment, can you at least leave the commentary to the living?