I will depart, slightly, from the usual discussion of religion on "The Accuser" to give you, my dear reader, a small review of a debate I had the displeasure of attending last night.
Billed as the "Thrilla in Manhattan-illa," it was meant to feature Christopher Hitchens debating Playthell Benjamin (couldn't find a good link, but he writes for The Black World Today). Hitchens was for the war, Benjamin was not.
It started out ominously, with a terrible act by Imani Coppola, whose voice is pretty, but musical decisions are awful.
Once that was over, we were given permission to wait, because Playthell Benjamin was late. He arrived, and the debate, such as it was, began.
The moderator was a fine man by the name of Michael Wolff, of Vanity Fair fame. He set out the rules, 5 minute opening statements, followed by questions asked by Wolff. Benjamin opened. His approximately 13 minute polemic made wild accusations about war criminals, conspiracies, PNAC and all sorts of alleged "proof" why the war in Iraq is wrong. Which is fine. However, he did not actually make a point beyond the typical "Bush is bad, so the war is bad" kind of thing. Which, upon closer inspection, is what Vonnegut would refer to as a granfalloon. Benjamin also felt it necessary to refer to countless intellectuals, writers, poets who had won all sorts of awards... from Pulitzer's to Nobels, etc... I suspect he believed that by associating himself with luminaries, he would raise his own arguments somehow.
Hitchens opening was clean, concise, well-thought out and argued. In fact, an actual opening statement. He set out, and this is important because it was the only point he was allowed the make the entire debate and not be interrupted, why he supported the war and why the war was just. He mentioned the four conditions under which a country is allowed to be invaded (of which Iraq had broken all). He mentioned the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the legislation unanimously passsed by the US Senate (and near-unanimous House).
I'm not going to repeat Hitchens' arguments here. He has done a much better job than I ever will through his writing. Go here to read them.
Playthell, on the other hand, did not make a single argument. And for an atheist, he certainly preached an awful lot. And... like a bunch of trained seals, the audience learned to bark at the right comments (PNAC, Blood for Oil, George the Second, etc). Hitchens came to debate, and instead, he got to watch a grown man yammer on and had to endure an audience that preferred Playthell's ranting to a reasoned debate.
It's the sort of thing one goes to Church for... to listen to someone who says exactly what you believe. But that is because people are afraid to listen to reasoned arguments. Because to discuss something using reason, means to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong. It means you have to think about what you believe, instead of just believing it.
Wolff then cut off this travesty to open it up to the audience. The questions were just prepared statements from the audience against Hitchens and for Benjamin. The first or second audience member actually admitted that she was invited to the debate by Benjamin to make a statement. It got worse from there. Some idiot starting saying "Great Satan" referring to the US and it's attitude towards Iran in 1979.
This is the problem when people think they are politically savvy, but are really just being taken in by hucksters and charlatans. Playthell Benjamin is a joke. Hitchens should be given an award for putting up with him as long as he did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
This is very true post. I was there too last night and I couldn't agree with you more. Why is it that in a city that is supposed to be so open - so intelligent - that the crowd wouldn't let two "intellectuals" (I know one clearly is, not sure about Mr. Benjamin) open up the discourse. I found last night to be horrible in almost every sense. The fact that there were prepared statements for Benjamin just made his approach get weaker and weaker. Any news on if and when Hitchens will go on his radio show?
I'm glad I am not the only one who felt that way. You bring up a point I had forgotten to mention: Benjamin kept saying that he wasn't given the opportunity to talk (think Perot "Can I finish?") and invited Hitchens to his 2 hour radio show. If Benjamin is so unprofessional in a public debate, what he might do in a situation where HE is officially in control is terrifying. If I hear anything, though, I'll keep you posted.
Cheers,
Leo
I had a similar experience at the WNYC-Nation debate on Wednesday night, at which Hitchens was called a fascist by an audience member and later told to F%&# off.
More: losingteam.blogspot.com
I traveled all the way from Boston to witness this “debate”. In fairness, I must disclose my admiration of Hitch and I wanted to see him in action for the first time. I had never heard of Mr. Benjamin so, before I boarded my bus, I googled him. I found a clip of him at some rally in NYC screaming at the top of his lungs that he smoked up daily. He was obviously quite proud of his schoolboy rebelliousness. I was similarly under whelmed by samples of his articles, none of which I could stomach finishing. The blatherings of a man who could not get past his own skin pigmentation, I surmised. A common affliction. I had an idea that the event would be more entertaining than thought provoking. I was not disappointed in this regard. It was a thrilla! The moderator and Christopher walking out, immediately followed by the audience, while Mr. Benjamin was in his “closing” rant was a clear example of “voting with one’s feet”. Phew! Good stuff. Now that I’ve had my crash scene rubbernecking, hopefully the next event I attend will actually live up to its name: a debate.
Eh. Not following you on this one.
IMNSHO, Hitchens should be politiely informed that there is a buffet and wet bar waiting for him in the Green Room, and then led out the back of the auditorium where a small crowd waits to unceremoniously stone him to death.
There was a time when his farts smelled like bacon, true, but he's yet another one whose poor brain broke on 9-11-2001, leaving him just another shill for the the neocons' New American Century bullshit.
(heh. my blogger verification graphic spells out 'soviwt'. So close...)
Like Mike from Boston, I, too, came a distance (from the Catskills) to hear a debate that I expected to compare to the excellent one between Hitchens and Scott Ritter. No such luck. Benjamin turned out to be an ass who had no intention of debating (if he knows the meaning of the word) but instead simply ranted. Sadly, much (but not all) of the audience came to cheer him on rather than hear anything from Hitchens that might contradict their preconceptions about the Iraq war.
I trust the sponsors of the affair will issue refunds to those of us who bought tickets for a debate that never happened.
Bob Anderson
I was also at the debate, which degenerated into an absolute joke, due to Benjamin's imterruptions, hate-filled rants and incoherent statements. Benajmin's presentation style reminded me of the late Redd Foxx, in an intoxicated state. Thankfully, the debate came to an end when Hitchens and the moderator, Wolff, walked off the stage to a rousing ovation.
One of the more appauling comments from Benjamin came in response to a point made by Hitchens regarding Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, when he stated, and I am paraphrasing, I don't give a sh*t about no Kuwaitis. What a humanitarian.
At least at the Hitchens-Ritter debate, Ritter, with whom I did not agree and found to be somewhat naive, presented arguments and cited to laws, facts and documents.
I was surprised by the amount of support for Hitchens in the Manhattan crowd. I would have asked for my money back, but it appears that Dr. Benjamin may need it.
I was there also, and I would rank it as one of the top-five weirdest nights of my life. Several of the other four involve LSD.
One thing that struck me was that Benjamin declared at least three times that Hitchens was refusing to appear on his radio show-Hitchens had been saying, "Yes, I'll do it," the entire time. He stuck with this classical rhetorical technique of not actually listening to one's opponent until the very end when Hitchens and Wolff walked off. The last comment I heard before leaving was "I've asked him to be on my radio show, and he doesn't want to do it."
We're coming for you, Gillen! We're planting NeoCons in your local library to watch you browse the Human Sexuality section! We've got rogue ex-Soviet scientists chained in an abandoned aircraft hanger at Area 51 developing water supply additives that will make you wake up Jewish! There is no stopping us!
But seriously, this sounds like an entertaining debacle, on par with Hitch's non-debate with Galloway, which featured a similarly stocked audience of braying idiots. Does anyone know of a recording available for download?
PS: 9/11 was faked. The WTC is in Israel, acting as a giant generator (powered by the blood of US soldiers and Palestinian babies) keeping Sharon alive.
As I suffered through Imani Coppola's SEVEN unthinkably wretched cliche daisy chains songs on Thursday evening, I was naively contented in thinking that SHE would be the most embarrassing blighter of the evening, and that I would momentarily be privy to another roaringgoodtime debate featuring C. Hitchens vs. A. Pacifist (or G. Hadist, or I. Solationist, or N.M.E. Tokurds, or just some unwitting, righteously leftist T. Totaler and P. Snickatanycost if your prefer (I don't, that was a bit much)). Instead, P. Benjamin, whose foul online writings I too could not push myself through, forced me to reconsider just how bad a performance can be before rotten produce is more than appropriate. If I'd had some, any Dear Ethicist Columnist would not only have approved, but would have shown me how to follow-through with the pitch. But I restrained myself, partly due to lack of said produce but also because it would have been like hurling an egg from a bomb shelter. Audiences at these events (and this event in particulr), I think, are far too safe from rebuke (eg. they repeatedly emit farm animal sounds and read statements at what is meant to be an inquiry time, with too little scorn from either the contenders on stage or the organizers possessing of the mic privileges).
Enough good examples are given here of why the evening was a wash and why P Benjamin owes S. Pelligrino, C. Hitchens and especially M. Wolff (he was really a brown paper package tied up with string that evening. Need to run into him again) a short (please, short) and sweet apology. And he owes some of us at least ten bucks or so.
I do want to add a small critique of C. Hitchens’ approach that evening. Or if someone can clarify what his intentions were, than it can go from a critique to a misunderstanding. Why didn’t he go after P. Benjamin in ways he damn well knows he could have. As C. Hitchens, why not, when P. Benjamin sets his arguments unsteadily atop Nobel Prize winners (which L. Vladimirsky points out too), mention the Award’s other humble recipients, like Kissinger and Mother Theresa. As C. Hitchens, why not, when P. Benjamin calls on the President to send his buxom offspring to Iraq to become babes in arms (with P. Benjamin also saying he would only send his 20 year old daughter to fight a just war), point out that its not in his power, or anyone else’s for that matter, to “send” an legally-adult-aged person to any war. As C. Hitchens, Why not hold P. Benjamin to the flame now, when he’s right there calling you a charlatan and more, and then refuse to go on his show because its impolite to light a cigarette while your still screwing someone. Maybe he just didn’t feel like it.
I have seen Mr. Hitchens debate three times in the last six months against George Galloway, Scott Ritter and now the lightweight Mr. Benjamin who belongs with the lefty riff-raff in the audience and not on the stage during a serious debate. However it is suitable that Benjamin, who hosts a radio program on the cartoonishly radical WBAI, gets his chance to embarrass the left further considering what a joke the left-wing has become lately (MP George Galloway on Big Brother for example, lol).
Mr. Hitchens deserves our respect and support because in his own singular manner he champions true progressive values while smacking the face of Islamofascism and the braying left who give aid and comfort to the head-hacking fiends in Iraq.
I would implore Mr. Hitchens to continue supporting this noble and righteous struggle for democracy in Iraq and exposing the infantile and deranged left for the
pro-fascist "useful idiots" they have reduced themselves to.
Christopher Hitchens is the best man for this job; he's got their number and knows what buttons to push.
In addition, I look forward to reading Mr. Hitchens review of George Galloway's prison diaries in the near future. Cheers, Rob
As tmac mentioned, I too was surprised at the number of Hitchens supporters in the crowd. However, regardless of which side you were on, there should have been a modicum of respect. I was disappointed in the crowd as well: more so, however, by Benjamin's supporters rather than Hitchens' (although there were a couple hecklers in our court too.)
As an aside to Mr. Gillen (who, I know is a firm believer in reasonable discussion), I really think you ought to have been there. Think freshman seminar. It was a travesty, regardless of where you stand on the war. Hopefully, someone will produce a transcript, video or audio of it and I will post.
unfortunately, i missed the debate, but i'm reading these posts-- can someone confirm that the debate did actually end with hitch and wolff just walking away in frustration while benjamin was talking? thats what it sounds like.
anonymous....it really did happen. They walked off.
I am always amazed that there are members of the audience, on both sides, who feel obligated to make comments, or have arguments with other members in the crowd, during a debate. I certainly didn't pay an admission fee to hear their juvenile and tired comments.
The debate was simultaneously horrifying and entertaining. The opening act was fine. A bit long. The opening statement (or rather the rambling soliloquy by Benjamin) gave notice to all in attendance that only Hitchens was to be taken seriously.
Benjamin was a discredit not only to himself, but to any cause he should hope to advance. The frustration/futility of this debate soon deteriorated to “Jerry Springer”-like entertainment. Moderator Wolff was humorous, despite being thwarted in his duties. The acute zingers hurled by Hitchens hit their mark every time. There is no greater insult than that which annihilates its target without even raising the awareness of its victim. Of these there were many in Hitchens quiver, and he did not hesitate to employ them. Playthel can read. I’m not so sure about how he is at thinking on his feet. We never got the chance to see.
Not what I had hoped for, but well worth the price of admission. I can’t get enough of the liberal intolerance of logic. How disgraceful they have become just adds to my delight. It is a shame they have been so misled, because the danger of our world is all too real. I welcome the shouting. This debate must rage!
i don't understand the "delight". i guess there might be some mastabatory-like satisaftaction gained from hearing your own opinion repeated back at you in a soothing and seductive tone, but i think the divide we saw at this debate (or however many you want to casually mention being at) is nothing if not sad. it is sad that no one is willing to listen, that no one is willing to stop whining and start thinking outside of their own narrow pacifism. i don't understand how one gets off on these differences of opinion. they ought to instead sicken one. i can't accept that either "teams'" ideal end points are that dissimilar, and that is what makes a civil and mutual exhange so vital. i guess, to further the anology, we ought to stop loving to beat them, stop loving to beat ourselves off, and start beating to bits the ones who seek foul ideological empires.
I was there as well and find these descriptions unusually accurate. However, what chilled me the most was not Dr Benjamin but his unthinking impenatrable supporters who seemed to have no more capacity for individual or original thought than their mindless reactionary counterparts on the right. I was flanked by two women who, I later reflected, in their wholesale adherence to the broadest possible liberal cliches and their mindless parroting of the most tired and generalized commonplaces of their particular team (in this case the crackpot contigent of new york liberal left) would, I felt, had they been raised in a tradition of violence instead of nonviolence have been right at home buring down the Danish embassies because their mullah had told them that an obscure cartoon in a small paper in Denmark - DENMARK! - represented a global insult to Islam, which thanks to these monstrous people, gets to sound like a dirtier word every week. The tradition of nonviolence is important of course but the lack of actual thought is just as frightening.
And it was that mindless adherence to the party line - in this case a left-leaning party line - in so many of the audience that was so alarming and depressing. I don't think it has a damn thing to do with being on the left or the right. I am sure you would find the same wilfully obtuse, absolutely opaque mental calcification at a Creationist meeting or a Pro-life meeting, or name your group.
What I like best about Hitchens is that even though I have yet to hear him seriously challenged on the weakest points in his argument, he thinks for himself. And as far as I know is the only polemicist on EITER side who has the independence of mind to freely criticize the side he is on. To wit, his many pieces unabashedly critical of President Bush and his people, all of whom but Wolfowitz he seems to loathe. (E.g., the possible stolen election in Ohio, the NSA lawsuit, various diplomatic and military disasters, etc.)
It may be that I haven't read enough, but I have not seen one statement by any of his interlocutors in support of any of his many unassailable positions.
In particular, it should be obvious to anybody in New York that the left-leaning cadre (in which I was brought up) has never for a moment held any arab or nonwhite country to the same standards which it holds the United States to. To hear women hissing when Hitchens (or anybody) describes the Taliban or other Islamic fundamentalists as barbaric, it makes my stomach turn. There is no liberal tenet that the Islamacists would not outrage and destroy if they could and yet a considerable number of people on the left really do seem to think, and sometimes say, that George Bush is as bad or worse than Osama Bin Laden. This from people who would be the first to be put to death under, say, a bin Laden administration.
This kind of double standard is horrifying and reminds one of the kind of thing you hear from reactionary politicians and activists all the time.
It is I am sorry to say, Liberal racism, which in its laudable and historically heroic effort to find justice to people whom the mainstream of American life has trampled underfoot, are as incapable of putting them in the same catagory of humanity they put their white friends and enemies in. They are victims and to be pitied and understood, even when they fly airplanes into buildings in the hopes of striking back at America by slaughtering three thousand stockbrokers, secretaries, janitors and handymen, etc.
I never heard anybody in my circle say anything like, "It's not that I approve of the Oklahoma City bombing, but considering how federal policies have trampled working class whites underfoot for the last two hundred years, what can you expect?"
None of this means that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, or a good idea considering how it's been done, or that President Bush is a frighteningly anti-democratic figure. But you can't get away from the fact that while he has been dismantling the constitution and shipping people off to be tortured in other countries, he has also destroyed two of the worst governments in the world. And the people who have been sure from the first moment that it would be a disaster may be right but the fact is that nobody knows what's going to happen and 80 percent of Iraqis may want us out, but 100 percent of Americans want us out too - it's a question of how & when. And I haven't seen a survey yet asking whether that same 80 percent wishes that Saddam was still in power. That doesn't mean we should suspend the constitution or send people to other countries to be tortured. But why is it so difficult for people to keep all these things in mind at once?
Why is everybody so Goddamn sure of themselves when most of us don't know a damn thing except what we read, usually in papers we already agree with.
Did anyone else catch Playthell's Wayne's World reference?
"If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped!"
I think Wolff asked him to repeat it, too.
I encourage all who found Mr. Benjamin and the loudmouthed elderly school kids in the audience entertaining, to listen to WBAI Radio (95.5 FM) in New York for more of them same. Benjamin has a program on that Pacifica station in the small hours of the morning once a week.
When I began listening 10 years ago I was a staunch liberal Democract and they converted me into the staunch neo-con that I am today.
The best thing about this kind of crack-pot radio is that there are usually no screeners and it is simple to get on the air and contradict the fringe leftist blather they spew 24/7 (of course some like Benjamin will hang up on you the second you reveal your an independant thinker). In all the years I have been listening, the only caller who eber gave a cogent challenge from the right was me.
I encouraged others to test so called "free speech radio" at WBAI and call in.
Of course WBAI always crys about the oppression in fascist "Amerika" but in fact their studios are located on Wall Street and their signal is in the middle of the FM dial in New York City! Talk about mega-expensive real estate. We all should be so oppressed!
After reading some of these comments, I come to the conclusion that a refusal to properly capitalize one's sentances is just one symptom of an advanced stage latent penis-envy. Great beat-off allusion, though. Lovely.
I was the next in line to pose a question to the "debaters" when time ran out. I was going to say that just that afternoon I had the misfortune of reading Lincoln's great speech at Cooper Union in 1860. While I was not expecting a Lincolnesque performance I was hoping for two intelligent debaters. One showed and the other was merely spewing childish, illogical rhetoric. So here's my quaetion: My time is lost but who do I have to speak to to get a refund?
Why hitchens would agree to go on Williams radio show says more about his microphonic adiction than his obvious brilliance.
http://madnessofmany.blogspot.com
My shift and caps keys were broken due to a coffee cup and saucer malfunction, JERK. Penis envy...how lame.
I think the main problem with the Hitchens-Benjamin debate has been overlooked in many of these posts. Dr Playthell Benjamin's inability, and that of what Christopher Hitchens rightly called his "claque", to even recognise what constitutes a debate, is an indictment of the self-referential insularity of African American Studies (and its primary influence, Postmodernism). Benjamin, and his supporters, viewed the Iraq War, not as an issue worthy of debate in itself, but as a forum to ventilate the subject of African-American self esteem. Benjamin entered the debate as a champion of African-American grievance - hence his constant reference to long-dead black intellectuals, and his strange claims (to modern ears anyway) to unique black insight - insight that whites, by virtue of their race, obviously couldn't possess. (A peculiar idea considering Martin Luther King's rejection of racism). Listening to his supporters talk about Benjamin before the debate, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him enter the hall levitating, such was the awe in which they held him. The extraordinary ignorance that Benjamin's supporters had of Hitchens' intellectual views (past and present), something of which Benjamin was also guilty, was encapsulated for me by a woman shouting at Hitchens "Sabra and Shatila, you bastard". The most depressing aspect of the whole night was that Benjamin's supporters left the Cooper Union building with their moral righteousness and intellectual superiority intact. I left the hall to a chorus of "you beat him, Playthell". A most peculiar night, saved only by meeting Christopher Hitchens for a few moments at the booksigning.
Two things:
1. Declan, that was a really fantastic post.
2. As soon as anyone has a lead on getting an mp3, or streaming audio (or video, etc..) of this debate, please post it. I am dying to hear it.
Thanks!
Two things:
1. Declan, that was a really fantastic post.
2. As soon as anyone has a lead on getting an mp3, or streaming audio (or video, etc..) of this debate, please post it. I am dying to hear it.
Thanks!
Well, I watched the Hitchen's Galloway DEBATE...I watched the Hitchen's Ritter DEBATE...and i was excited to see the Hitchen's Benjamin DEBATE...but i didnt see a debate. I respect Hitchens, although i do not agree with him at all. Regardless...This was disgraceful. At one point, i thought that Hitchen's paid this guy, just to make his point seem more valid. The liberal activists in NYC are a disgrace to the Anti-War stance. You can be against the way...and not some liberal activist loudmouth freak. I'm sorry dems...but this round goes to Hitch. And for those of you shaking your head...its the same reason that Bush was able to with a 2nd term. THE DEMS ARE INCOMPETANT. With the amount of scandals...you would think that they could easily take back the presidency. SHame on the Dems...and SHame on the Republicans for taking advantage of these idiots.
As a former Democrat and now loyal Bush supporter, I am in agreement with previous posts on the incompetance of the Democrat Party as personified in the debate and the romper room cheering section for Mr. Benjamin.
The once great Democrat Party has become infantile and unhinged and it is its own fault. Perhaps by President Condi Rice's second term they may start growing up a little bit and become a serious political force again.
I was there, and it was a travesty.
Two things no one brought up here, as of yet.
1. When Playthell talked about black churches and preachers etc., Hitchens answered back with something like "I wonder what the reaction would have been if I'd mentioned African-Americans 'sense of rhythm.'" He shot down Playthell's race-card-playing argument and no one even really took notice.
2. Toward the end, Htichens asked the crowd if, since they opposed invading Iraq, would they also oppose sending troops to Sudan. Of course the crowd said they would oppose that too. "Oh, well, it doesn't matter," Hitch said. "It's too late anyway. They've already all been killed."
Growler:
You bring up two excellent points that I am sorry I forgot. Thanks.
His comment regarding Sudan was brilliant. I wonder how many of the people who oppose entry into Sudan (which I am whole-heartedly for) fully understand the gravity of the situation. As of March, 2005, this BBC articleestimates 180,000 dead. That was a year ago. Nevermind this is again a conflict that has religious origins: Muslims slaughtering the non-Muslims.
Playthell was a disaster for all the reasons stated here. But he was right about one thing: Hitchens' arguments for the war in Iraq are indeed "faith-based." And it's rather amusing to see people on a site devoted to "reason," blathering on in defense of the indefensible -- as Hitchens himself does, however artfully. The war and its outcomes have been disastrous, by any reasonable standard. It has cost tens of thousands of lives, rendered our military impotent to deal with real threats (Iran anyone?), left us more vulnerable to terrorism, is depleting our treasury. And so on. Playthell was an atrocious "debater," but Hitchens is wrong. In fact, he comes off as a babbling, thin-skinned fool when faced with people who can marshall even elementary facts and arguments, as his opponents David Corn and Bob Graham did just the night before the so-called Thrilla. What an ingenuous bunch Leo and his fans are. Reason? Please. I can hear more reason from the pulpit.
Brilliant, Leo. We've already made a mess of Iraq and left Afghanistan to rot among the warlords. Now, you want to take this sorry show to the Sudan? To accomplish what exactly? And with what troops? Are you proposing reinstatement of the draft? Hmm, I'd like to see you float THAT one in the heartland. I mean really, Leo, what are you talking about when you say you are in favor of "entering" the Sudan? Any plans for such entry yourself, or would you be cheering the whole enterprise on from your keyboard, while America boys and girls get their limbs blown off in the Heart of Darkness? For a man who hosts a site devoted to reason, I am seeing nothing but irrational piffle.
Definite Travesty. Worst debate I've attended ever. Not only the poor discussant (Benjamin) contributed to this pity but how about the organizer(s). The organzier read really quck introductions, interupted the debate twice from the front of the house and didn't lay down a proper format that most good debates adhere to. I should've asked for my money back in public during the q & a. At least Hitchens provided for his usual Comic Relief that accompanies his polemics.
Aaron
Mr. Cohen,
It is my intial assumption that you would not favor any military action unless, possibly, there was a direct attack on this country. Although this administration has made numerous mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you correctly point out, it should be recognised that we are in a war, which is disputed by many on the left. It must be remembered that it was the Clinton administration who decimated our armed forces and intelligence community during his eight years in office.
Unfortunately, we cannot tie up all of the loose ends in a made for television mini series. I can only hope that the American public can stay focused on this war and tolerate it until at least the beginning of the new Survivor season next year. This war is going to last for years, even if there is a democrat in the White House.
I think part of Hitchen's argument is that, as a country, we are no longer going to tolerate dictators, thugs, acts of genocide, etc., which are going to threaten the security of our country and allies.
Of course, the United States cannot do this alone. Unfortunately, the United Nations appears content on playing the game of diplomacy without any threat of a military option to back it up. The majority of the international community appears to have adopted a position of ignorant neutrality in the hope that they are not caught in the swarm of the terrorists who misinterpret Islam. Basically, their position is, "We don't want to make them angry or they will target us. Better to keep the focus on the United States and England."
Hopefully, Europe and the rest of the civilized world is waking up to the dangerous threat we are facing in the form of radical Islam. The Mohammed cartoons, beheadings, kidnappings, torture, etc. Now that is compassionate conservatism.
I fear that the international community will not fully acknowledge this threat until there is another major attack. By my previous statement, I realize that I run the risk of being labeled a fear-mongerer by some on the left.
Of course, many on the left will tow the party line and blame Bush and his policies, while excusing the jihadists, as victims of an imeprialist administration.
In regard to the Sudan, I believe Hitchens raised that issue for a couple of reasons. First, it was to demonstate the ineffectiveness of the United Nations. Secondly, the Arab Muslims are now slaughtering the Black African Muslims, who must be protected according to Benjamin's logic. However, Benjamin was exposed as a fraud on that point by revealing true politics in his numerous attempts to play the race card during the debate. Clearly, he had no concern for the slaughtered Black African Muslims in the Sudan.
Can anyone argue that North Africa is not a breeding ground for terrorists?
Finally, there is no question that we need assistance in combatting the threats in Iran, North Korea, North Africa, etc. The question is, "Which countries will step forward to do it".
Thanks for reading.
Tmac - you took the words out of my mouth. An elegant response.
Now...Mr Cohen,
Regarding your first comment, do you recall what Benjamin said (specifically) about Hitchens' argument being "faith-based?" I remember him saying this but don't remember exactly what he supported it by. (This is, by the way, not meant to be a rude comment... I honestly do not recall how Benjamin supported his comment).
As for entering Sudan, I would like the United Nations to step up and do what it was meant to do: maintain international peace and security. A genocide clearly violates the principle of international peace and security. The UN should cease to be terrified of military action and actually try to help countries, instead of starving the citizens of despotic regimes with economic sanctions. Why wouldn't we (and I say we referring to the liberal democracies in the world) want to help? What good does it do to give stern warnings to people who are KILLING their own citizens? Are they going to turn around and say "Oh yes, you are correct. We will tell our militias to cease and desist."
That strikes me as faith-based attitude.
T-Mac,
I supported the Afghanistan invasion because our country was attacked. The rest of what you write is unsupportable and unaffordable nonsense. Your cracks about American impatience and TV mini-series are absurd. You are clearly another faith-based contributor to this site purportedly devoted to "reason." Have you learned nothing from the disaster that is unfolding before your eyes in Iraq? In a rational world, one would not have to defend the notion that, "Yes! We should only favor military action if we are attacked! Or, pre-emptively if the threat is *imminent*." I assume your next post will be your last for a while as you will soon be on your way to your local recruiting station.
Leo,
The UN is not some neutral third party. We are an active part of the UN and its biggest contributor. One way to get the UN to work more effectively would be to stop trashing it and undermining it and start acting like a member. How about we get more constuctive there? This is Bush-ism writ large, on the world's stage: Trash and undermine government, then say, "See, we told you the government doesn't work!"
First of all, let me be clear, I am an atheist. Therefore, it is difficult for me to understand your faith based comment. Further, do not assume that I am a gung ho Repulican either.
My attempt at humor, which I enjoyed, was included in the previous post to exaggerate the point that the American public, in general, has no stomach for the ongoing military action in this war on terror. Many would prefer to place their heads back in the sand and hope the bad guys just go away. Can we at least agree that there is a war in terror?
Diplomacy has always been a luxury of the west. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to negotiate with Islamofascists and their infantile followers. This is not the stone age, where many of those followers appear to be stuck.
Forunately, we disagree about when we should utilize force. If my memory is correct, Afghanistan never attacked us either, which means that your argument fails. According to your logic, I guess we should have merely issued subpoenas for the arrest of the terrorists who masterminded 9/11.
It remains far too early to declare Iraq to be a failure. Please remember that Iraq was suppressed by a brutal dictator for the better part of the past four decades. If the new government is to survive, it will take many years. As a side note, I can assure you that the tanks that rolled into downtown Baghdad sent a not so subtle message to the Arab world, who were shocked by the ease with which Saddam folded.
Finally, as far as your Michael Moore-ish statement, regarding my impending enlistment, I will ignore it. I am a 35 year old lawyer. Last time I checked, that was above the recruiting age cutoff. Further, please let me know when our armed forces were no longer based upon voluntary service. If we were to follow your argument regarding service in the military, which is seriously flawed, my father, three uncles, one of whom was killed in Japan during WWII, and my older brother, all of who served in the military, would have a greater authority to speak about this war. I don't think that my opinion is inferior in anyway to those held by the individuals I have just named.
"I supported the Afghanistan invasion because our country was attacked... I assume your next post will be your last for a while as you will soon be on your way to your local recruiting station."
The juxtaposition of these two statements brings to my mind a scintillating riposte to this tired and frivolous cliche. Just what that ripopste might be is left as an exercise for the reader.
T-Mac:
>>>>>It remains far too early to declare Iraq to be a failure.
You are so deep in denial, it's hopeless. Your arguments are pure sophistry and rationalization. And, yes, the Taliban (which was the government of Afghanistan) was essentially a front for Al Qaeda. So attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do for our country's security. Attacking Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror, and it has only increased our risks. You know that. The government knows that. Just about anyone with a shred of expertise in the region knows that. Any sentient being not named Christopher Hitchens or William Kristol knows that. We're now left with finding the least bad of a bunch of terrible options. You know that too.
And I know that when an argument about all of this starts to completely fall apart, the name Michael Moore gets trotted out.
T-Mac:
This one is a beauty: "I can assure you that the tanks that rolled into downtown Baghdad sent a not so subtle message to the Arab world..."
Oh, yes, and the Arab world, not to mention the whole Islamic world, is quaking in their boots. The mullahs in Iran (yes, I know they're not Arab) have responded to this by giving the finger to the world and accelerating their nuclear program. Or did you miss that story? Hamas now controls the occupied territories and will not renounce their desire to destroy Israel. Those voters were really quaking, weren't they, along with Hamas' leaders? The Muslim Brotherhood is poised to take over Egypt. Syria is freely meddling in Iraq and supporting the insurgency --- and EVERYONE KNOWS IT! Ooooh, they're just terrified of those tanks. (Oh, yes, they withdrew from Lebanon --- but left their spies and agents there.)
Insurgents are coming from Saudia Arabia into Iraq to blow up American soldiers. Terrified of those tanks, aren't they?
As a 35-year-old, you are free at any time to sign up for the now-depleted National Guard Reserve. You would be doing your patriotic duty.
T-Mac and Hiero:
The "Anonymous" post was mine. I forgot to type my name.
Anyway, Hiero, why leave it to others to offer the witty "riposte"? Have at it.
The fact is, after 9/11, young Americans ran in droves to recruiting stations because our country was attacked, and these young patriots heard the call. They knew it would be a hard slog, but they also did their duty. These same young men and women are now running as fast as they can away from recruiting stations, because they know Iraq has nothing to do with our national security (or didn't, anyway), and they know what smartasses like you and T-Mac deny: That we were conned.
People vote with their feet. And since young people of fighting age won't get near the Iraq war (wisely), it's up to laptop warriors like you to, at the very least, help plug the holes in the National Guard Reserve. You wanted this war --- go do something about it.
If Iraq opponents think the war in Afghanistan is just, why don't they enlist? I just get tired of the chickenhawk people who say we need to be fighting in Afghanistan from the comfort of their keyboards.
That sounded pretty crass and frivolous, didn't it? Not quite the devastating piece of rhetoric is it?
Keep in mind that the sheer scintillation and brilliance of the "why don't you enlist" taunt is not obviated on the off chance that you (with whom I am not acquainted) actually are enlisted -- not that I particularly care. Not only is the internet fertile grounds for finding other "why don't you enlist" taunters who in the next breath claim that Iraq was a "distraction" from Afghanistan, but the jibe is silly on its face. I like to think that one of the nicer aspects of our Constitutional system that sets our quality of life above that of tinpot dictatorships like Pakistan is the concept of civilian control of the military. Little did I know that now only military members are entitled decisions about the justness of wars. Why not just have done with it and restrict the vote exclusively to the members of the armed services? We could then perhaps move on and restrict the eligible candidates in a similar manner.
Not that you would have known or cared, but I did work for the USCG after the start of the war, which has the unique distinction of being both a branch of the DHS and a branch of the US Military, with forces deployed in the conflict. I also used my weekends volunteering at Kerry Campaign headquarters, phonebanking, pounding the pavement, doing voter registration drives, helping administer rallies, and in other ways donating my time and money to elect someone who in my honest judgment would have done a better job handling Iraq. So you'll pardon me if I refuse to be condescended to with cheap sneers about "laptop warriors".
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, coming as it does from a bivouac in Kabul, I'm sure.
Hiero,
Your aping of Christopher Hitchens' style and rhetoric needs work, but it's getting there. A good exercise would be to try to hear his voice in your head when you write --- it might flow better. The business about the civilian control of the military --- that's a nice Hitch touch. As is use of the term "sneering."
Your work for your country is admirable, as is volunteering your time for Kerry. I do sincerely salute you for that. But your view of the Iraq war is sadly misguided. How, when presented with grim evidence to the contrary almost every day for the past 3 years, you can still think this was a good idea, and good for our security, is beyond me.
I am not even sure Kerry would have, or could have, "handled" Iraq any better. It's like "handling" a live hand grenade. Kerry might well have sent more troops, which would just have gotten us further and further into this disastrous mess.
Give it up. Quit rationalizing this war, and denying what your eyes, ears, mind (you are obviously intelligent), and conscience are telling you. It's OK to be wrong. Better to admit that you were wrong, than to keep on denying it and being complicit in a disastrous undertaking that is killing tens of thousands of people, destablizing the Middle East, and severely undermining our national security and our ability to confront militarily (if we need to) REAL threats like the ones posed by a possibly nuclear-armed Iran.
Hiero,
This sentence is actually a good one: "So you'll pardon me if I refuse to be condescended to with cheap sneers about "laptop warriors"."
Nice. That's the Hitch style. I can almost hear him saying it. A bit more of this, and you'll have the voice and style mastered.
Some other phrases you might want to consider:
* "Kissingerian (or Lindberghian)" --- as in the "isolationist" left. Use this to shame the anti-war left by associating them with Kissinger's realpolitik. It's clever, and plays on lefty guilt, or attempts to.
* "my Kurdish comrades with whom I will stand, win or lose" --- as if the entire Iraq war is being fought for international solidarity with his left-wing brothers in Kurdistan. (see also: "the only real insurgents in Iraq --- the peshmerga".
You get the idea. But you're getting there.
So we've put the inane "why don't you enlist" business behind us now? Excellent. I'm sure I can count on you to admonish others that its use says more about them than about their intended targets.
Since that has been the beginning, middle, and end of my commentary, I consider the matter closed.
Hiero,
No, really: Why don't you enlist? At least in the National Guard Reserves. The military literally needs the bodies right now, at least to shore up the reserves, to fight this war you're so gung-ho for.
Call me inane or whatever. But we need a few good men and women, and it seems to me that those who are most enthusiastic about this misadventure --- who are so convinced of the justice of the cause --- would be first in line to pitch in. Is that unreasonable? I think that if the American public were behind this war, and saw that it was in our interests, enlistment wouldn't be a problem --- the military would be turning people away. But alas, the war only seems to be popular among the blogoshere bombardiers.
I think he would be more valuable staying a civilian and putting the moonbats in their place.
BTW...more US civilians have died in on day in NY & DC than in three years of war in Iraq. Welcome to warfare in the 21st century.
WE ARE ON THE FRONTLINE!! Debates like this will decide defeat or victory in the end. This is a war of ideas we are engaged in.
It's been a pleasurable exchange with all of you, but I have an appointment back on Planet Earth.
Mr. Cohen,
You mention that Iraq was not a threat. Except that it was on the list of "State Sponsor of Terror" since 1990, I believe. Certainly before this latest invasion...
Please, Leo, that's not a reason to invade Iraq. Don't be cute. Are you suggesting that we invade every country on that list? There are myriad ways to combat terrorism that do not involve invading and occupying a country --- and sending it spiraling into civil war (which is happening now, and which was predicted).
I think Hitchens put it very plainly outside the Danish Embassy in Washington. "Solidarity with Denmark and Death to Fascism." Hitch is a true progressive and true believer in human rights unlike the imposters we see now on the infantile left.
I have always thought that this war in Iraq is really a war for Europe and we are seeing that today. Liberty vs. fascism.
What side are you on?
So we should have done nothing?
One thing I never hear mentioned by the anti-war crowd, was the state of utter torment the Iraqis were living under with the sanctions. Close to a million people died as a result of sanctions that only made a psychopathic despot that much fatter. Were we to keep the sanctions in place and allow more people to die or were we to remove them and allow Hussein and his equally vile children to re-arm?
Is anyone remotely aware that for years American pilots were shot at on a daily basis in the no-fly zones? Were we to tolerate that as well? Were we to tolerate that act of war?
So, when did GENOCIDE become so unimportant? When did it become tolerable? Why do Americans cry at films like "Schindler's List" and then shrug their shoulders at ethnic cleansing and wholesale murder? Is it not important enough because it's not put to music and blown up on the big screen? Do we need to see it as a Spielberg film to get the (expletive) point? Is that what it takes? Are we that short sighted?
Since the war ended we have found THOUSANDS of bodies. We will never know them all. So we were to do nothing?
Are we so (expletive) content and secure with our abundance and freedom and wealth that we can't do our part to end suffering that WE are connected to through the sanctions and broken promises?
The Baath Party, the Taliban and all Islamofacists deserve nothing less than absolute annihilation. They are the barbarians at the gates. They are the enemies of free thought, free expression and civilization itself.
Roger,
What do you propose would work, in the face of terrorism? Clearly, they are unwilling to negotiate. Take a look at Hamas. And Iran. Sanctions don't work, because they only punish the civilians. The aristocracy and government never starve.
If anything, the second Iraq war was a catalyst for the world (specifically Europe) to see precisely what we face.
Regarding state sponsors of terror, we ABSOLUTELY need to do something. Perhaps in every situation invasion is not the answer, but it is our responsibility, that is, if we are opposed to a global caliphate, to end fascist and oppresive governments.
I have stumbled onto this page from Wikipedia and it's interesting to see the dogma on both sides, since I'm mostly uncertain about the majority of the issues involved.
Iraq is a mess at the moment. It was also a mess (of a very different kind) under Saddam. On one hand you have Iraq under Saddam: a country that was a sponsor of terror, where citizens lived in constant fear and where anyone who stepped out of line was assasinated. On the other hand, you have the Iraq that we'd all like to see: A peaceful country where civil liberties prevail, where the rights of the individual are respected and where the population is free to choose its own government. The problem is that there is no magic wand that can transform Iraq from the former to the latter.
There are those on the Left who deplore the war and ignore the fact that Iraq under Saddam was a hellish country of murder, lies and intimidation. And there are those on the Right who supported the war and ignore the fact that Iraq is now consumed by a bloody and chaotic civil war.
So, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
What is clear is that there is no easy path in a post-Saddam Iraq. The feudal and religious grudges that were repressed under Saddam are now bubbling over with horrific results. Some people will rather coldly point out that all nations suffer civil wars at some point - that, it's the natural consequence of a nation in adolescence searching for its own identity, but this seems a rather inhumane response to the human cost of the war.
What is interesting is how ready everyone (on both the left and right) is to delcare victory. I remember how the Right crowed and jeered when the Iraqis pulled down the statues of Saddam. "Look! They hate him! We were right!" they screamed. And as the situation got bloodier and more and more innocents died, so the Left took its turn to point and sneer, revelling in Bush's failure. All of this seems to be working on the premise that history is like a football game where the whistle is blown after 90 minutes and a winner can be declared. But history never ends. In five years time Iraq may be a thriving democracy or a Islamofascist state. In twenty years time the positions may have swapped.
None of this means that we can't debate the issues in the meantime, but there's rarely a point in history where the truth doesn't simply reflect who has the upper hand at the moment.
The citeria Hitchens puts forth to justify invading are too simplistic. Other things mus be taken into account such as:would invading Iraq create a worse situation in the middle east.
Britain went to war against germany. Two and a half decades later, Europe was almost completely destroyed.
Would hitchens support a declaration of war against Israel? Someone should ask him.
The American people are determining the terms of the debate, not Hitchens. What a much more informed American people are now saying is this:Iraq ws not an immiment threat to the US. Therefor, we would not have sent our sons and daughters to die in the Iraq.
This brings me to my central point about Hitchens: If America's teenagers are fair game, then Hitchens two sons are fair game.
Why hasn't Hitchens driven his two sons down to the marine recruiting station.
I find Hitchens and many of the war supporters to despicable. He can take his oxford debating society tricks and shove them. American Teenagers are being killed and maimed for Hitchens crusade.
The slave state Kuwait is not worth dying for.
If the US nukes Iran, Hitchen's game will be over. There will be no more debates. There will a fist to the mouth pussy upper class twits mouth.
Christopher, why haven't you driven your American born sons down to the marine recruitng station?
I've really grown to detest Legal immigrants from Britain.
The fact that Christopher Hitchens hasn't driven his American born sons to the marine recruiting doesn't disqualify from commenting on the Iraq war.America is a free country. The coward and legal immigrant Hitchens has been given a huge platform to make his case for the Iraq war.
However, more and more ordinary Americans are raising this question. Why should their teenage sons and daughters have to die a horrible death in Iraq while Hitch and his two American born sons live it up.
There is a credibility issue here. Why should ordinary Americans take Hitchens and other chickenhawks seriously.
Your civilian job for the coast guard doesn't count as military duty.
Hitchens is advocating the doctrine of premption This will allow the FASCISTS in the White House to murder thousands possibly millions of innocent civilans on the basis of flimsy evidence about threats to Americans. The rest of the world would never tolerate this.
The fascist in the Bush administration are doing the job that Saddam Hussien wasn't allowed to finnish which is: torturing and killing the opposition.
Playthell Benjamin is a complete and total asshole.
Playthell Benamin is a complete, total, and utter asshole.
Uh, for those of you referring to Playthell Benjamin as "Dr." Benjamin. He has no degrees and especially not a Ph.D. in anything. He is a complete and utter asshole.
Fuck You!
Fuck you
love imani
let me guess...you like jazz?
What a bunch of culturally incompetent white racist assholes.
I've witnessed a handful of debates between Hitchens and African-American intellectuals. Before I continue, I have not frivolously used "African-American" as an adjective. I would gladly use it as a noun if the men in question would, by word or action, do the same.
Meaning, an African-American who participates in a debate and claims from the very beginning to be a spokesperson for a group of people who are in possession of a racial "second-sight" is a person trying to give themselves more credibility than they possess. In fact I will go so far as to rephrase the message in the manner in which I perceive it:
I am no expert but as an African-American I, and all who share my ethnicity, possess a mystical and unique insight that makes us as worthy of attention as any other speaker.
This, ladies and gentlemen is known as manufacturing credibility and it should be a clear signal to the listener that something is amiss.
Referring to my earlier point, it is also, sadly, the point at which Benjamin, Jackson, Sharpton and others cease to be intellectuals who are coincidentally African-Americans and become African-Americans who are arguably intellectuals.
Playing the race card is a powerful tactic in American discourse but was much more powerful when its use was confined to matters directly relative to the plight of African-Americans in America. Once individuals like Benjamin realized how effective the invocation of their ethnicity could be and started using it indiscriminately as a way to drown out the voices of more knowledgeable speakers they unwittingly or uncaringly diminished the work of African-Americans who would define or would have defined themselves as intellectuals first and everything else second.
Simply put, a speaker who prefers to be inflammatory rather than informative is a speaker not to be listened to.
Hitchens and the moderator should have walked off the the stage at the first mention of a racial second sight.
welcome to the wow power leveling cheap service site, buy wow power leveling cheap wow gold,wow gold,world of warcraft wow power leveling buy wow gold
Get the lates information of Electronics Gadgets Tech gadgets Cool Gadgets New Gadgets Best Gadgets Latest Gadgets Cool New Gadgets
Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa
Good debate, I think it is well put discussion but poorly developed and therefore did not obtain the desired result in people is to invite reflection
I watched the Youtube of this "debate" and was shocked by how incredibly uniformed, arrogant, and downright useless Playthell's performance was.
I wish him no luck at all in his blatant attempt to form a cult of personality around his substance free platform.
He doesn't even seem to understand the women in america are not subject to the draft.
This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want...HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great! Replica Watches
The term "bank teller" originated in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash, when banks began hiring low-paid workers to "tell" throngs of frantic depositors that their money was gone.
It is evident that The Accuser is a white Republican. It does not matter rather you are a white Republican or a white Democrate, you all are the just the same. The more Black men show their intelligence, white men becomes threaten. White people most definitely have the DNA of their forefather- the dehumanizing slavemaster. The slavemaster or should I say the cracker who cracked the backs of slaves who wanted to read. Do this sound familiar. The only difference in your forefather the cracker is you don't use the whip anymore, you use the high tech rope; the internet, facebook, television, radio and plain old character assasination. One thing I can say is that you are your forefather the salvemasters children. Hey, I guess you did not know you had the same horns!!
a green light Forsaken World Gold envel oped the Atlantica Gold entire cavalry corps headed by Zhao Bailong above Dragon Nest Gold.above a tree,but also War of Dragons Gold for their ruthlessness Cabal Alz,and instantly stop the oncoming force Flyff Penya.for him Atlantica Gold,and even Tin Fu Lu Wada clothes they Last Chaos Gold pull in behind the action did not hear him
Unconsciously Runes of Magic Gold,and she saw a caterpillar on the Dofus Kamas shining blade, is not into figurines Dragon Nest Gold,it is precisely this reason that Dragon Nest Gold Bu ddhism did not enter the forbidden magic that R2 Gold blacklist.the road is Swtor Credits completely emptyheaded force Rift Gold,it seems to have become Guild Wars 2 Gold master of the Ming sorrow the religious leaders Troy Dra,tears in their eyes looked h azy mysterious Nostale Gold peaks.So after the war.dozens of 4Story Gold trees in snow
Troy Online Gold
Grand Fantasia Gold
Maplestory Mesos
rusty hearts gold
wow power leveling
ta
but their empty wine bottles Eden Eternal Gold as early as this thousands of miles wilderness,the sand Everquest Platinum,North Point streets Grand Fantasia Gold,Lancer rifles such weapons FFxi Gil is to maximize the arms Fire Fall Gold,pirates of the Stanford FFxiv Gil interference is particularly serious Guild Wars 2 Gold.Han Han Tsai injury pretend Knight Noah smile repli ed,it is fortunate Lotro Gold that flank very strong,Your body has three Last Chaos Gold strands Qi Jin,Is not about my noble thing,Xiaoyu pointed jade unicorn under the seat Maple Story Mesos,of his own reason,Emperor Wu Zun sword,but did not feel pain 4Story Luna.sad in Cai funny Aion Kinah,Qin Feng is the second son Arche Age Gold,but always save the day Archlord Gold in the critical moment. Atlantica Gold has been continued Blade Soul Gold for nearly half Cabal Alz of the long stick of incense DCUO Cash,O ne day children Dungeons Dragons Platinum,precisely in order to decorate Dekaron Gold the Red,Xuan Feng burly man will Dofus Kamas mention that in my hand Dragon Nest Gold,never spend more than EQ2 Platinum a day full hour
eand raised a shield of body Rusty Hearts Gold already prepared Shaiya Gold,Xuan Feng said: Having said Silkroad Gold that.scared to d SWG Credits o was looking like paper Swtor Credits,pressing a big step forward Tera Gold,why is over several days Tibia Money,plea se give weekend Vindictus Gold,there are more than WOW MONEY a decade behind bit WOW GOLD his bro ther Eden Eternal Gold - Age of Empires GOLD Age of Empires GOLD
,enough to accommodate Metin2 Yang tens of thousands of people,straight as Nostale Gold the road ancient poem A Thousand Perfect World Gold grinding million R2 Gold hit Kennedy also strong Rappelz Rupees,together with the maid Rift Gold standing on both sides of the Church Rift Plat,will have the whole world ROM Gold,The battle front on the big screen Runescape Money display
Post a Comment