THROWBACK: Hitchens Vs Galloway On Islamic Extremism

Clip from the Thursday, February 5th 2015 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday - friday 4-6pm Eastern.

Check out our website - and become a member - at:

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Follow on Twitter:

Like on Facebook:

Friends Of SecularTalk:

AMAZON LINK: (Bookmark this link to support the show for free!!!)

[peterthehappywaiguoren]

Just got this recommended to me in March 2024 and it's still relevant!

[tesladavinci]

Galloway was the biggest enemy/critic of Sadam until he wasn't an ally of the US.

[Crissy_the_wonder]

It’s not atheists who made Islamic extremism worse, the Bush and Blair administrations were Christian administrations with a divine element to their mission. But Islamic extremists (people who follow the Islamic political ideology to the letter) would still attack their own people. Religions are political ideologies and must be scrutinized and debated. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is used to shut down and cancel debate and valid criticism

[gloomuuptu]

"What kinda Ladens?" "Bin Ladens" LOL

[blondecyborg]

There is some truth in what both Hitchens and Galloway say.

[hansblitz]

IN the beginning, Hitchens was talking about the initiation of the First Barbary wars where Libyan militants attacked American shipping vessels off the coast for no other reason than that they were "infidels"
He was making a great point, the point being muslims do not need to be "provoked" the way that leftists claim is a necessity for them to lash out.  It is really interesting how you chose to edit that point he was making out.

[flinchus]

The problem is the discussion is based around criticising the other side rather than solutions that address the same moral ideals.Allow dictators to act unimpeded or wave a hand at the inevitable collateral damage.

[tech]

Hitch was wrong about the war. One of his biggest mistakes. Never the less, brilliant and someone I agree with on many many things. I agree with Galloway on many items as well. Although, he's off on things as well. Just the nature of things.

[kirtooahmadinejad]

Hitchens was kinda crazy on his war mongering views. Which i think is suprising when you listen to his other views, on other subjects.

[The_Gallowglass]

I met with some Iraqi Catholics a couple months ago. We talked about what they thought about the war and Hussein. One of them said, "Our people can't do democracy. They need a dictator."

[Macconator]

This is the core difference between Hitchens and Galloway. Do you believe that the cause of Islamic terrorism, jihadism, fundamentalism, is more linked to their medieval religious beliefs which Muslims are instructed not to change, as this is the final revelation, that there can be none after this, OR do you think it is more linked to United States foreign policy? Key word here: more, because let's face it, both are contributing factors. Progressives these days seem to deliberately oversimplify Hitchens arguments on the war, which like pretty much every argument he's ever made, is nuanced and cannot be narrowed down to a yes or no. It irritates me to no end that the first thing a progressive has to say about Hitchens is "well he was for the Iraq war", an oversimplification if there ever was one. He must be wrong right? Because he's for war? Hitchens is not saying foreign policy doesn't make it worse, he's saying this religious ideology has a much greater influence over the situation. Americans of all people should understand this given your major issues with fundamentalist Christians and white supremacists. Seems to me this same underlying fetishising of foreign religions simply because they aren't from the American, Western, Imperialist... etc progressive cliches, you get the idea. Why is it progressives are so passionate about crushing fascism but can't get their heads around that Islam is innately fascist and practically impossible to change?

[stephenyin]

I loved Christopher Hitchens the atheist, but I cringe at his politics

[DrHotWarLove]

5:03. Islamic fundamentalism (specifically Sunni Salafism/Wahhabism) as we know it today originated in the modern day Arabian gulf states around the 1740s. It was founded and propogated by an ultra-orthodox, puritanical cleric named Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab; hence the name of the ideology "Wahhabism." Wahhab made an alliance with Muhammad bin Saud, the founder of the House of Saud, whose descendants founded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

[sam-tefu]

The important and relevant point from this show preceded what was shown. Hitchens brought up the fascinating fact that in 1788, when the US was newly born, American sailors were taken as slaves by the Barbary states of the Ottoman empire in North Africa. Estimated at about 1.5 million American and European slaves were taken by the Barbary states of the Ottoman empire between 1750 and 1815. Jefferson and Adams went to the ambassador in Britain to ask why the Barbary states were doing this, and the ambassador replied that the 'Quran gave them permission to do so, because you are infidels'. In response, Jefferson sent the Navy to crush their state... "and a good thing too!". This was a perfect historical example given by Hitchens to reject the modern woke claim that the clash with Islamic theocracies and barbarism is only the result of US foreign policy. They kill and enslaved over one million Americans before the US had done anything to anyone.

[squiresquiffy]

This young chap has it about right, although the Muslim Fundamentalists are simply following what is stated in the Quran, the Hadith and following the example of that perfect being, Mohammed. To argue that the fundamentalists are somehow taking an extreme reading of the Islamic scripture is a mistake, they are taking a literal reading, ie taking seriously, and they would say devoutly, the words and commands contained in those texts. Fortunately many Muslims are not devout and do not read Islamic scripture, they may learn to recite verse from the Quran in Arabic like robots but that is something else. People need to be aware that every single verse in the Quran that speaks of tolerance of The People Of The Book, ie Jews and Christians, is rendered void by the later revelations urging Muslims to fight Jihad and kill all non Muslims or make all non Muslims captives. Generally when the circumstances dictate, Islamic countries are tolerant of Jews and Christians but when things are ordered as they should be, ie with the clerics in control and Sharia operates, that is when Muslims achieve dominance, then life for non muslims in those countries becomes very unpleasant.

[standoughope]

I love these Throwbacks. It shows that Kyle studies the recent past. Too often I've seen where intellectuals stay in the present (always a good idea) or study the distant past. It's 100% my subjective experience so please take what I said with a grain of salt.

[MassEffectGER]

Hitchens in complete and childish denial of the catalyst of Islamic fundamentalism... Embarrassing.

[warrenphillips]

I'm a massive Hitchens fan but I'm with George on this one.

[brendajstevens]

Christopher Hitchens. I wish he was still here, I really do! 🇬🇧🙏

[RevolutionarySM]

Hitchens hated religion so much that he choose to embraced western imperialism. This only worked because the resistance to imperialism became Islamic fundamentalist by the 1990's. Secular nationalists failed to change and therefore many Arabs turned to Islamic fundamentalists.