i have to post something like this every once in a while just to get the point across that the existing narrative is ridiculous. and, i was thinking about this the other day, when eating.

hitchens was wrong about iraq - because his assumptions were wrong. see, if saddam hussein were isis, though, he would have been right. so, the irony is that hitchens' argument for the 2003 invasion - while completely wrong, in context - is the perfect argument to use to justify the war against isis. and, it's even ironic that he didn't live to make the point. i'm sure he'd appreciate all of this.

what i'm getting at is that he didn't make an error in logic so much as he made an error in fact; if his perception of iraq under saddam hussein was rooted in reality, rather than american propaganda, he would have been absolutely correct. and, i can't know whether his arguments were just convenient or not, either - if he just thought it was a good excuse. if so, he should have known better, as it didn't take much foresight to realize that if you really did fear the rise of an isis-like group then keeping saddam in place was just about the best thing that could have been done to prevent it, and that creating all of that chaos in iraq was just about the worst thing you could imagine doing. this was certainly my argument in 2003 - that regime change via bliztkrieg from above in iraq was an insane idea. but, here is some more irony - the islamophobic and supposedly racist late hitchens may have simply given the arabs too much credit. once the bogeyman of saddam was removed, they would surely spontaneously generate into a secular pan-arabism, right? what leftist naivete is this, christopher?

in making his arguments, he often made a very salient point: that there is good reason to be afraid of islam. islam is of course a violent system of hetero-patriarchal domination, just like christianity. and, do we not all fear the christian right? so, what is islamophobia, then, if not a rational fear of totalitarianism? and, is it not every good leftist brit's responsibility to be in constant fear of a return to cromwellianism?

well?

see, and, for this reason i don't have any problem acknowledging that i am deeply fearful of islam, and would support just about anything to prevent it's continued growth. this is the fastest growing religion in the world, and thus is my most pertinent ideological foe, as a staunch atheist. it represents everything i am opposed to, and i seek to challenge it any way i possibly can. one must have a certain level of respect for their opponent, even if that respect is not particularly intellectual in nature, and with that respect is a healthy level of fear.

it would be daft to deny any of this.

but, it would be equally daft to deduce that a healthy fear of the continuing spread of islam as an ideological force implies some kind of racial bias against arabs, or turks, or iranians, or berbers, or pakistanis or any other group that professes this faith in statistically significant numbers, as bereft of any value as i claim that it is. there's simply no basis in the deduction; any such accusation is entirely baseless.

so, i will stand in support of islamophobia, even as i denounce racism against groups that statistically lean towards the religion of islam. i will stand in solidarity with the apostates, as i denounce the imams. there is no contradiction in this position - and it is even imperative that we recognize that there isn't, in order to inoculate ourselves from this religion's continuing influence and spread.