What Do You Think of Peter Hitchens?
I think that he is an insightful, intelligent and admirable human being. I am horrified when I read on the Internet people saying things like "The wrong brother died". Both Peter and Christopher have had great insights to contribute to humanity and they are both deserving of attention and respect.
However, I do believe him to be too much of a boring pessimist. This stems from his rather repugnant Christian morality, which gives him very little attachment to this earthy life and therefore gives him less motivation to do something positive in the here and now. Peter has quite simply given up on achieving his perfect society (a rejection of utopianism that stems, I believe, from his rejection of Marxism, which in that context is laudable), but as a result he has cast his gaze heavenward, which is preposterous as there is no heaven and nowhere worth living outside this earth (to our scientific knowledge, at least). As such he casts nothing but disparagement and derision on sociological and political developments occurring at the present time. His youth now over, I guess he feels that the exciting part of his life is over, and that there is no longer any point dedicating himself to a project of humanistic self-improvement, which is disappointing.
I believe that if he rejected this absurd, Christian, Platonic outlook on life and embraced a more positive, Nietzschean or Voltairean outlook, or a Weltanschauung similar to that of his brother, that he would feel more motivation to work towards the transformation of this degenerate species of ours. We might not achieve perfection, but that is besides the point, as perfection would give us nothing more to perfect. Life is flux, change and growth, and that is good and noble.
So yes, a bit less Burke and a bit more Nietzsche is what I would recommend.
However, I do believe him to be too much of a boring pessimist. This stems from his rather repugnant Christian morality, which gives him very little attachment to this earthy life and therefore gives him less motivation to do something positive in the here and now. Peter has quite simply given up on achieving his perfect society (a rejection of utopianism that stems, I believe, from his rejection of Marxism, which in that context is laudable), but as a result he has cast his gaze heavenward, which is preposterous as there is no heaven and nowhere worth living outside this earth (to our scientific knowledge, at least). As such he casts nothing but disparagement and derision on sociological and political developments occurring at the present time. His youth now over, I guess he feels that the exciting part of his life is over, and that there is no longer any point dedicating himself to a project of humanistic self-improvement, which is disappointing.
I believe that if he rejected this absurd, Christian, Platonic outlook on life and embraced a more positive, Nietzschean or Voltairean outlook, or a Weltanschauung similar to that of his brother, that he would feel more motivation to work towards the transformation of this degenerate species of ours. We might not achieve perfection, but that is besides the point, as perfection would give us nothing more to perfect. Life is flux, change and growth, and that is good and noble.
So yes, a bit less Burke and a bit more Nietzsche is what I would recommend.
Scroll to see replies
I can't stand him. He's an extremely superficial thinker, not one-fifth the writer his brother was.
He's "right-on" from a right-traditionalist perspective. He says things he thinks people will find shocking because he enjoys being thought of as an old curmudgeon. It's a psychological crutch, not a serious intellectual/political position. He enjoys being thought of as a bete noir, an enfant terrible. As a result he always seems to be scrabbling around for the most controversial and shocking thing he could say from a hard-right-traditionalist perspective.
Many of his proposed policies are completely idiotic, like his claim that if only we would "properly" punish drug users and dealers then we could win the war on drugs. First, we already punish them pretty harshly; anyone who cares to spend the time to read the caselaw will see that people are regularly put away for a term of years for possessing with intent to supply merely a few hundred pounds worth of heroin and crack. Two years for having £200 of crack is a bloody harsh sentence, and it's one that was imposed by an English court only a few years ago.
Second, there are plenty of countries that do impose the "proper" punishments for which he calls (Singapore, China), where people are executed for drug offences. And yet, those countries still have drug problems; how can this be? Well, it can be because Peter Hitchens is clueless on drug policy and has applied his evidence-free, superficial thought processes to that as to pretty much every other issue he writes about.
He also adheres to the scummy, anti-British / anti-Western alt-right foreign policy inclination (like Peter Oborne) that impugns the motives of the war in Iraq, that lauds Vladimir Putin as a visionary and generally demands an isolationist foreign policy that is completely at odds with this country's traditional foreign policy disposition. Whether we like it or not, we are the only middle-power with truly global capabilities. We still have a mini-empire (in the Mediterranean; Gibraltar at the western end and our Cyprus bases in the east), our base at Bahrain, our 3,000 Gurkha soldiers and the army establishment in Brunei, our territory in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. Only France, among the other middle powers, has a comparable mini-empire.
Peter Hitchens has never been able to get over being Christopher's little brother, and it sent him a bit loopy. He clearly hewed to the opposite of whatever position his brother adopted, leaving him with a really quite nasty, reactionary set of ideas that manages to marry the worst elements of isolationism, superstition and barbarous socio-political ideas. He should be treated as the confused, psychologically-broken man he is.
He's "right-on" from a right-traditionalist perspective. He says things he thinks people will find shocking because he enjoys being thought of as an old curmudgeon. It's a psychological crutch, not a serious intellectual/political position. He enjoys being thought of as a bete noir, an enfant terrible. As a result he always seems to be scrabbling around for the most controversial and shocking thing he could say from a hard-right-traditionalist perspective.
Many of his proposed policies are completely idiotic, like his claim that if only we would "properly" punish drug users and dealers then we could win the war on drugs. First, we already punish them pretty harshly; anyone who cares to spend the time to read the caselaw will see that people are regularly put away for a term of years for possessing with intent to supply merely a few hundred pounds worth of heroin and crack. Two years for having £200 of crack is a bloody harsh sentence, and it's one that was imposed by an English court only a few years ago.
Second, there are plenty of countries that do impose the "proper" punishments for which he calls (Singapore, China), where people are executed for drug offences. And yet, those countries still have drug problems; how can this be? Well, it can be because Peter Hitchens is clueless on drug policy and has applied his evidence-free, superficial thought processes to that as to pretty much every other issue he writes about.
He also adheres to the scummy, anti-British / anti-Western alt-right foreign policy inclination (like Peter Oborne) that impugns the motives of the war in Iraq, that lauds Vladimir Putin as a visionary and generally demands an isolationist foreign policy that is completely at odds with this country's traditional foreign policy disposition. Whether we like it or not, we are the only middle-power with truly global capabilities. We still have a mini-empire (in the Mediterranean; Gibraltar at the western end and our Cyprus bases in the east), our base at Bahrain, our 3,000 Gurkha soldiers and the army establishment in Brunei, our territory in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. Only France, among the other middle powers, has a comparable mini-empire.
Peter Hitchens has never been able to get over being Christopher's little brother, and it sent him a bit loopy. He clearly hewed to the opposite of whatever position his brother adopted, leaving him with a really quite nasty, reactionary set of ideas that manages to marry the worst elements of isolationism, superstition and barbarous socio-political ideas. He should be treated as the confused, psychologically-broken man he is.
(edited 7 years ago)
People say a lot of depressing things on the internet. I don't particularly like Peter Hitchens: in terms of personality, his brother was by far and away the more interesting of the two. Still, he's a broadly interesting sort - but I find it bizarre speaking as a Conservative that his brother's worldview chimed rather more with me than his does.
I look forward to his weekly column but find him to be a relatively boring individual man to listen to. Nevertheless, a great voice against the PC police.
no idea who he is but his name reminds me of kitchen
kitchen=food
food=chocolate
kitchen=food
food=chocolate
I always read his column and he seems like an intelligent and thoughtful journalist and it is refreshing to have a right wing person who is still balanced. However, he is always moaning and very negative/gloomy and thinks he is much cleverer than he is, he also muted me on twitter lmao prick
Yeah definitely prefer his brother obviously. I think he unlike a lot if modern day 'conservatives' is at least intellectually consistent. On closer inspection he doesn't actually merely go to the polar opposite of his brother and both share similar views and had a deep respect for each other. i actually quite like him and have respect for him.
I will say that though I don't have 'heroes' if I did his brother would be amongst them and his insight has been sorely missed over the last few years. I would have payed good money to ave seen him take apart Farage.
I will say that though I don't have 'heroes' if I did his brother would be amongst them and his insight has been sorely missed over the last few years. I would have payed good money to ave seen him take apart Farage.
Original post by AlexanderHam
I can't stand him. He's an extremely superficial thinker, not one-fifth the writer his brother was.
He's "right-on" from a right-traditionalist perspective. He says things he thinks people will find shocking because he enjoys being thought of as an old curmudgeon. It's a psychological crutch, not a serious intellectual/political position. He enjoys being thought of as a bete noir, an enfant terrible. As a result he always seems to be scrabbling around for the most controversial and shocking thing he could say from a hard-right-traditionalist perspective.
Many of his proposed policies are completely idiotic, like his claim that if only we would "properly" punish drug users and dealers then we could win the war on drugs. First, we already punish them pretty harshly; anyone who cares to spend the time to read the caselaw will see that people are regularly put away for a term of years for possessing with intent to supply merely a few hundred pounds worth of heroin and crack. Two years for having £200 of crack is a bloody harsh sentence, and it's one that was imposed by an English court only a few years ago.
Second, there are plenty of countries that do impose the "proper" punishments for which he calls (Singapore, China), where people are executed for drug offences. And yet, those countries still have drug problems; how can this be? Well, it can be because Peter Hitchens is clueless on drug policy and has applied his evidence-free, superficial thought processes to that as to pretty much every other issue he writes about.
He also adheres to the scummy, anti-British / anti-Western alt-right foreign policy inclination (like Peter Oborne) that impugns the motives of the war in Iraq, that lauds Vladimir Putin as a visionary and generally demands an isolationist foreign policy that is completely at odds with this country's traditional foreign policy disposition. Whether we like it or not, we are the only middle-power with truly global capabilities. We still have a mini-empire (in the Mediterranean; Gibraltar at the western end and our Cyprus bases in the east), our base at Bahrain, our 3,000 Gurkha soldiers and the army establishment in Brunei, our territory in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. Only France, among the other middle powers, has a comparable mini-empire.
Peter Hitchens has never been able to get over being Christopher's little brother, and it sent him a bit loopy. He clearly hewed to the opposite of whatever position his brother adopted, leaving him with a really quite nasty, reactionary set of ideas that manages to marry the worst elements of isolationism, superstition and barbarous socio-political ideas. He should be treated as the confused, psychologically-broken man he is.
He's "right-on" from a right-traditionalist perspective. He says things he thinks people will find shocking because he enjoys being thought of as an old curmudgeon. It's a psychological crutch, not a serious intellectual/political position. He enjoys being thought of as a bete noir, an enfant terrible. As a result he always seems to be scrabbling around for the most controversial and shocking thing he could say from a hard-right-traditionalist perspective.
Many of his proposed policies are completely idiotic, like his claim that if only we would "properly" punish drug users and dealers then we could win the war on drugs. First, we already punish them pretty harshly; anyone who cares to spend the time to read the caselaw will see that people are regularly put away for a term of years for possessing with intent to supply merely a few hundred pounds worth of heroin and crack. Two years for having £200 of crack is a bloody harsh sentence, and it's one that was imposed by an English court only a few years ago.
Second, there are plenty of countries that do impose the "proper" punishments for which he calls (Singapore, China), where people are executed for drug offences. And yet, those countries still have drug problems; how can this be? Well, it can be because Peter Hitchens is clueless on drug policy and has applied his evidence-free, superficial thought processes to that as to pretty much every other issue he writes about.
He also adheres to the scummy, anti-British / anti-Western alt-right foreign policy inclination (like Peter Oborne) that impugns the motives of the war in Iraq, that lauds Vladimir Putin as a visionary and generally demands an isolationist foreign policy that is completely at odds with this country's traditional foreign policy disposition. Whether we like it or not, we are the only middle-power with truly global capabilities. We still have a mini-empire (in the Mediterranean; Gibraltar at the western end and our Cyprus bases in the east), our base at Bahrain, our 3,000 Gurkha soldiers and the army establishment in Brunei, our territory in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. Only France, among the other middle powers, has a comparable mini-empire.
Peter Hitchens has never been able to get over being Christopher's little brother, and it sent him a bit loopy. He clearly hewed to the opposite of whatever position his brother adopted, leaving him with a really quite nasty, reactionary set of ideas that manages to marry the worst elements of isolationism, superstition and barbarous socio-political ideas. He should be treated as the confused, psychologically-broken man he is.
I agree with you that his positions on drugs and foreign policy are retarded. He also comes across as the stereotypical grumpy old white man that leftists love to make fun of and who thinks that everything was better in the old days. But he does have some valuable things to say about the way in which British society is headed and about the debilitating effects of political correctness and cultural Marxism in our world today.
I don't like his derision towards Winston Churchill, who is rightly admired for saving our country from Nazism. He also has this weird, childish anti-Americanism so common for this "old white men" type of conservatism (Enoch Powell, figurehead of this especially disreputable species of isolationist British conservatism, felt the same way); he blames them for us losing the empire (which we were going to lose anyway) and, needless to say, is hostile towards our Atlanticist orientation in foreign policy.
Idk if you're right about him being jealous of his brother; he doesn't come across to me as someone who is particularly insecure or cares about fame or image - precisely the opposite. He seems to be comfortable with, or indifferent to, his position as one of the most hated journalist-intellectuals in Britain.
He's definitely a worse debater than his brother (who handily beat him in a debate I saw them have on YouTube), is much less charismatic and much less likeable. Indeed, he comes across as sour and miserable most of the time. He's also much less good-looking than his brother, but I suppose that's a rather inane and inconsequential point. I think he doesn't have his brother's Nietzschean courage with regards to say, Islam, which he hasn't attacked as fiercely as Christopher did. Possibly because Islam is a fellow faith, and however much he dislikes it, he can't bring himself to criticise it too sharply lest it bring his own particular brand of absurd superstition into question. Or he doesn't want to incur physical harm (as a matter of fact I recall him freely admitting on one of his articles, though I can't remember which, that he was in fact a coward and that is why he didn't republish the cartoons offensive to Muslims, or something like that).
The thing is, he's far too much of a blinkered reactionary. I really do wish he'd put down his Bible, his 1662 Book of Common Prayer and his Christian apologetics for just a second and read some Nietzsche. It would do him good.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Cato the Elder
I agree with you that his positions on drugs and foreign policy are retarded. He also comes across as the stereotypical grumpy old white man that leftists love to make fun of and who thinks that everything was better in the old days. But he does have some valuable things to say about the way in which British society is headed and about the debilitating effects of political correctness and cultural Marxism in our world today.
I don't like his derision towards Winston Churchill, who is rightly admired for saving our country from Nazism. He also has this weird, childish anti-Americanism so common for this "old white men" type of conservatism (Enoch Powell, figurehead of this especially disreputable species of isolationist British conservatism, felt the same way); he blames them for us losing the empire (which we were going to lose anyway) and, needless to say, is hostile towards our Atlanticist orientation in foreign policy.
Idk if you're right about him being jealous of his brother; he doesn't come across to me as someone who is particularly insecure or cares about fame or image - precisely the opposite. He seems to be comfortable with, or indifferent to, his position as one of the most hated journalist-intellectuals in Britain.
He's definitely a worse debater than his brother (who handily beat him in a debate I saw them have on YouTube), is much less charismatic and much less likeable. Indeed, he comes across as sour and miserable most of the time. He's also much less better-looking than his brother, but I suppose that's a rather inane and inconsequential point. I think he doesn't have his brother's Nietzschean courage with regards to say, Islam, which he hasn't attacked as fiercely as Christopher did. Possibly because Islam is a fellow faith, and however much he dislikes it, he can't bring himself to criticise it too sharply lest it bring his own particular brand of absurd superstition into question. Or he doesn't want to incur physical harm (as a matter of fact I recall him freely admitting on one of his articles, though I can't remember which, that he was in fact a coward and that is why he didn't republish the cartoons offensive to Muslims, or something like that).
The thing is, he's far too much of a blinkered reactionary. I really do wish he'd put down his Bible, his 1662 Book of Common Prayer and his Christian apologetics for just a second and read some Nietzsche. It would do him good.
I don't like his derision towards Winston Churchill, who is rightly admired for saving our country from Nazism. He also has this weird, childish anti-Americanism so common for this "old white men" type of conservatism (Enoch Powell, figurehead of this especially disreputable species of isolationist British conservatism, felt the same way); he blames them for us losing the empire (which we were going to lose anyway) and, needless to say, is hostile towards our Atlanticist orientation in foreign policy.
Idk if you're right about him being jealous of his brother; he doesn't come across to me as someone who is particularly insecure or cares about fame or image - precisely the opposite. He seems to be comfortable with, or indifferent to, his position as one of the most hated journalist-intellectuals in Britain.
He's definitely a worse debater than his brother (who handily beat him in a debate I saw them have on YouTube), is much less charismatic and much less likeable. Indeed, he comes across as sour and miserable most of the time. He's also much less better-looking than his brother, but I suppose that's a rather inane and inconsequential point. I think he doesn't have his brother's Nietzschean courage with regards to say, Islam, which he hasn't attacked as fiercely as Christopher did. Possibly because Islam is a fellow faith, and however much he dislikes it, he can't bring himself to criticise it too sharply lest it bring his own particular brand of absurd superstition into question. Or he doesn't want to incur physical harm (as a matter of fact I recall him freely admitting on one of his articles, though I can't remember which, that he was in fact a coward and that is why he didn't republish the cartoons offensive to Muslims, or something like that).
The thing is, he's far too much of a blinkered reactionary. I really do wish he'd put down his Bible, his 1662 Book of Common Prayer and his Christian apologetics for just a second and read some Nietzsche. It would do him good.
What's wrong with looking at America with a sceptic eye? The US is not some benevolent ally to Britain, yes our interests may align in certain areas but they aren't our friends.
Original post by Davij038
Yeah definitely prefer his brother obviously. I think he unlike a lot if modern day 'conservatives' is at least intellectually consistent. On closer inspection he doesn't actually merely go to the polar opposite of his brother and both share similar views and had a deep respect for each other. i actually quite like him and have respect for him.
I will say that though I don't have 'heroes' if I did his brother would be amongst them and his insight has been sorely missed over the last few years. I would have payed good money to ave seen him take apart Farage.
I will say that though I don't have 'heroes' if I did his brother would be amongst them and his insight has been sorely missed over the last few years. I would have payed good money to ave seen him take apart Farage.
And Trump. Oh how I miss the withering putdowns and savage jibes that Hitch would have showered down on the Tangerine Supremacist
Original post by demaistre
I see an outpouring of love for Christopher Hitchens in this thread....I've watched some of his debates and read a bit of his work what did he say that was so striking? As I'm really not seeing it.
He was the better looking brother.
Original post by demaistre
I see an outpouring of love for Christopher Hitchens in this thread....I've watched some of his debates and read a bit of his work what did he say that was so striking? As I'm really not seeing it.
Read "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". I'm reading it in my school library.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Read "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". I'm reading it in my school library.
Read half of it a few years ago, so it's just the anti-religion stuff then? Ah disappointing.
Original post by demaistre
What's wrong with looking at America with a sceptic eye? The US is not some benevolent ally to Britain, yes our interests may align in certain areas but they aren't our friends.
They are absolutely our friends. In the world of international relations, the Anglosphere / Five Eyes alliance is the thing that comes closest to a relationship of family. We trust them implicitly, as they trust us. We know they have our back, in a way our other allies like, say, the French or Germans never will.
We are bound together by our shared history, our shared language, our shared culture, our shared values and of course, our shared interests.
Such relationships do not come along everyday in the broad historical sweep. Such relationships are like gold dust; we should treasure them.
Looking at America with a "sceptical" eye is, I'm afraid, code for the usual, reflexive anti-American, pro-Russian crap that is infecting the body politic of the Western right (having leaped over the firebreak from the hard-left).
The United States, while not perfect, is by far the most benign great power in world history. We are lucky that the world hegemon is a power whose conception of self-interest generally runs to 'freedom of the high seas' and international trade, a rules-based global order, open markets and liberal democracy where this can be promoted, opposition to rogue states and the defence of Western Europe.
I can't think of any states in history who have had such a sophisticated conception of self-interest such that they believe that their interests are best served by stability, by free markets, by openness etc. Their conception of their interests is, "When other people do well, when other people are free, when other people are prosperous, we too will benefit from that". Hence why they helped rebuild Western Europe after World War 2, and expended countless treasures to defend it and deter Soviet aggression thus keeping Western Europe free from communist totalitarianism.
Naturally those states whose interests are not served by a liberal, rules-based global order will oppose and propagandise against this state of affairs. Traditionally they could rely on the Trotskyists to act as their proxies in the West. Now it seems they can rely on the alt-right too.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by demaistre
I see an outpouring of love for Christopher Hitchens in this thread....I've watched some of his debates and read a bit of his work what did he say that was so striking? As I'm really not seeing it.
[video="youtube;IPD1YGghtDk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPD1YGghtDk[/video]
If you don't appreciate this, then it can't be explained to you.
He is intelligent and interesting. He is always worth a listen/read. I don't always agree but all his arguments are always well thought out which I respect. He is a miserable ******* but I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't mind a dose of it from time to time.
Original post by AlexanderHam
They are absolutely our friends. In the world of international relations, the Anglosphere / Five Eyes alliance is the thing that comes closest to a relationship of family. We trust them implicitly, as they trust us. We know they have our back, in a way our other allies like, say, the French or Germans never will.
We are bound together by our shared history, our shared language, our shared culture, our shared values and of course, our shared interests.
Such relationships do not come along everyday in the broad historical sweep. Such relationships are like gold dust; we should treasure them.
Looking at America with a "sceptical" eye is, I'm afraid, code for the usual, reflexive anti-American, pro-Russian crap that is infecting the body politic of the Western right (having leaped over the firebreak from the hard-left).
The United States, while not perfect, is by far the most benign great power in world history. We are lucky that the world hegemon is a power whose conception of self-interest generally runs to 'freedom of the high seas' and international trade, a rules-based global order, open markets and liberal democracy where this can be promoted, opposition to rogue states and the defence of Western Europe.
I can't think of any states in history who have had such a sophisticated conception of self-interest such that they believe that their interests are best served by stability, by free markets, by openness etc. Their conception of their interests is, "When other people do well, when other people are free, when other people are prosperous, we too will benefit from that". Hence why they helped rebuild Western Europe after World War 2, and expended countless treasures to defend it and deter Soviet aggression thus keeping Western Europe free from communist totalitarianism.
Naturally those states whose interests are not served by a liberal, rules-based global order will oppose and propagandise against this state of affairs. Traditionally they could rely on the Trotskyists to act as their proxies in the West. Now it seems they can rely on the alt-right too.
We are bound together by our shared history, our shared language, our shared culture, our shared values and of course, our shared interests.
Such relationships do not come along everyday in the broad historical sweep. Such relationships are like gold dust; we should treasure them.
Looking at America with a "sceptical" eye is, I'm afraid, code for the usual, reflexive anti-American, pro-Russian crap that is infecting the body politic of the Western right (having leaped over the firebreak from the hard-left).
The United States, while not perfect, is by far the most benign great power in world history. We are lucky that the world hegemon is a power whose conception of self-interest generally runs to 'freedom of the high seas' and international trade, a rules-based global order, open markets and liberal democracy where this can be promoted, opposition to rogue states and the defence of Western Europe.
I can't think of any states in history who have had such a sophisticated conception of self-interest such that they believe that their interests are best served by stability, by free markets, by openness etc. Their conception of their interests is, "When other people do well, when other people are free, when other people are prosperous, we too will benefit from that". Hence why they helped rebuild Western Europe after World War 2, and expended countless treasures to defend it and deter Soviet aggression thus keeping Western Europe free from communist totalitarianism.
Naturally those states whose interests are not served by a liberal, rules-based global order will oppose and propagandise against this state of affairs. Traditionally they could rely on the Trotskyists to act as their proxies in the West. Now it seems they can rely on the alt-right too.
They have our back the same way we had the back of the Malayan union, we are not some equal partners the US is at the head of the table in this quasi-empire of theirs.
We should treasure it in so far as it benefits us, being naive enough to trust another nation implicitly does not good foreign policy make.
The British Empire was just as 'benign' as you claim the United States to be, but we were more overt with our Imperialism I will admit.
They kept Europe free from Communism as they were massively ideologically opposed to it, and didn't want the USSR a rival super power weakening their sphere of influence. They didn't do due to the goodness of their hearts. They also undermined the UK most chances they could get.
Russia is not the same thing as the Soviet Union, and I simply don't understand why Russia is painted as some bogeyman when they are a backward declining power.
But I suppose the US has little reason to oppose us, seeing as we're already fully subservient. Ideally however in future British blood won't be spilled maintaining the American Empire as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
[video="youtube;IPD1YGghtDk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPD1YGghtDk[/video]
If you don't appreciate this, then it can't be explained to you.
If you don't appreciate this, then it can't be explained to you.
Typical...well I suppose he did kick off the new wave of Atheists, so now typical Atheists arguments.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- St Peter's College (Oxford) Students and Applicants
- Peter Vardy Shutting Down, Got 2 Years Left On Warranty??
- Peter Symonds or farnborough?
- Whats your favourite song that tells a story?
- TIPS ON HOW TO GET AN A IN THESE A LEVELS thanks!!
- St Peters Court
- Internship / apprentice it student
- English Language Paper 2 12th June
- Peter Symonds College 2022-23
- Going back to Education. University of Plymouth
- Barton Peveril College or Peter Symonds College for Oxbridge Law
- Help with History Nea Coursework
- Choosing between Peter Symonds and Barton Peveril College
- St Peter’s court Nottingham 2024
- Oxford College hurt/heal
- Nottingham A100 / A108 2024 Offer Holders
- How can i get a grade 7 on my aqa history gcse
- St Peters court nottingham- old block vs new block???
- Has anyone heard from new college oxford for history?
- epq title help
Latest
Last reply 6 minutes ago
How do I start my email to a college to sit for Alevel as a private candidateLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 2 hours ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 2 hours ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
