@Exterioris-vallem Oh right - You know for a fact that no God like figure exists in the universe? Its certain in your intellectually bankrupt buffoonish brain that nothing even remotely similar to what we would call a God exists? Ah ok. So you're a silly little schoolgirl cheerleader kissing your own ass and your daddy Hitchens ass & aren't anywhere remotely resembling a serious thinker - gotcha.
@@ThatGingerCuntFromTerminator2 Iraq had broken treaties, committed genocide, was aggressive towards neighboring states, and was harboring internationally wanted terrorists. The war in Iraq was handled incompetently but they were for good reason.
Why is history more interesting when its presented this way? If I had a teacher in high school that could narrate like this man, it would have been more enjoyable.
In High School history is : This is what happened for us to be where we are today. If you remain interested you go to College and History becomes: This is what happened and these may be the reasons why it happened. And if you go further: This is what happened, we think we know some of the reasons why, but we'd like you to go through it all again and see if you can find more reasons or better reasons.
Whenever you hear an eloquent presentation like this, it's often from somone who wrote a book on the subject. Hitchens would sometimes just recite an entire chapter from memory.
His comments on the experience of living under a regime like this show how devoid from reality those here in the US are when they claim they are living under tyranny at the present.
Worked in Iraq for 6 months in early 1989, fortunately came home before he invaded Kuwait. Along all of the main roads throughout Iraq had huge hoardings with his portrait on. All the public buildings were decorated with his portrait and all offices likewise, every shop window would display his portrait. We even had to display a full length portrait in the reception of the British Club, next one of the Queen. The ex. pats referred to him as Uncle Eric just in case anyone was listening.
I'm British born of Yemeni descent. Was in San'a, Yemen in '95. Portraits galore of President Ali Abdullah Saleh not necessarily on government buildings but on shop windows. The three main Arab attitudes about their leaders is either tribal loyalty, fear or even if things are not going well, it would be embarrassing to replace him. Local Arab attitudes as a group, is also undisciplined, naive and temperamental. But there's also immense talent amongst the young but a century of defeatism blinds them to their potential creating a catch 22 situation for the next generation.
The man led to the podium who confessed to the alleged plot was Muhyi Abdul-Hussein Mashhadi. A few days before the purge he was a high ranking party official who also had Al-Bakr's ear as an adviser and secretary. What brought Saddam's wrath upon him was his strong, vocal objection to his appointment as president after Al-Bakr's resignation citing Saddam's lack of experience as a statesman and authoritarian tendencies. This is quite the chilling video of a lethal power play by a tyrant on the make.
I am thankful to have found Christopher Hitchens stumbling through tv channels on c-span in mid 80s then through the years until his sad passing I learned so much from a man I never met from his books, discourses and debates. May his mellifluous voice through programs like this, keep educating free-thinkers everywhere for a long, long time. I love the Hitch, his legacy ensures his immortality, he is sorely missed.
Watch the video and listen uo Hitch making mistakes. The man was not led in chain flanked by security. Not all where executed; some where tortured and set free as an example and warning to others. There is video footage of the children talking about this. Hitch has fallen as being respected by myself. He does not tell the truth as there is not video footage during this talk. He does not give guns; this is the other lie. Hitch was smart to say that other have is hard to get to be able to view.
It's a good question, I'd like to know what footage he was referring to. The footage played here does not seem to portray what he is saying (no chains etc.)
It always amazes me how one man can assert control over millions. Like Saddam was just sitting there and he was creating all this mayhem. You'd think everyone in that room would rush the stage and kill him with their hands after the 10th dude was escorted out.
MrAntiBuffoonery Saddam, at this time of the coup, was Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, and was the head of the security and paramilitary forces. On the 16 July 1979 he asked ailing al-Bakr (former President of Iraq) that he was no longer in power, leading to this purge on the 22 July 1979. In effect he was already in charge, this was just a 'clearing up operation' as the purge continued until the start of the Iran-Iraq War. As for the 'CIA' involvement, he needed no help to rise up the ranks in the Baath Party. His father and uncle were leading figures in the Baath Party, and helped in the in the coup of 1968 which saw the Baathists take over. He was also said to be close to Michel Aflaq the founder of Baathism. His talents as an organizer, sadist and thug were very much appreciated by the Baath Party, as history would prove.....
Thank you very much for posting this. I was reading Hitchens' description of this in Hitch 22, and I decided to see if the video was on RU-vid. So, this was perfect.
Bloody hell, as someone who was inspired to learn more about Iraq because of Hitchens this is incredible to watch. Pure Fascism and leader worship in action, and in real-time.
It was not fascist. Saddam was pro secularism and his party avowedly socialist, and had among its projects Arab unification with anti colonial language. He is a strong man figure like Stalin.
You do know I added the video, right? It was an obscure piece of film. Hitchens saw it years before and was going from memory. He certainly remembers it better than you or I would remember a documentary from 5 years ago. And it is true that party members were told (or volunteered) to kill the 22. Again, he implies 50 were taken out and killed. In reality, more than 50 were taken out, less than 50 were killed, but the number (nationwide) was way more than 50. He understated it.
Im something of an iconoclast, but i find it difficult not to idolize Mr. hitchens. Ive learned SO much from this man its ridiculous, i looke at my life, my families life, and the the lives of others in a complete different way.
Yup. A supposedly progressive and radical leftist atheist who was motivated by supporting the international proletariat for most of his life - going out of his way to supporting one of the most right wing religiously fanatical western neo imperialist government & leader in his holy war against third world authoritarian regime which provoked that secular regime into flirting & marrying his nationalist & socialist regime with Jihadists in order to resist the west and in the end helped cause that same regime to end up totally abandoning all of its socialist, nationalist & secular ideological principles and instead re establishing The Islamic Caliphate using brutal Islamic law mixed with totalitarian experience they gained under saddam. Yeah it was shocking to see how easily he was turned into a useful idiot cheerleading for the more powerful, wealthy & dominant right wing religious fanatical imperialist power to crush an ideologically socialist third world totalitarian power which did nothing but make Jihadists many times more powerful than ever before. So yeah, he lost all respect he had from majority of those who appreciated and were influenced by his early work and most of his co thinkers to gain the appreciation of right wing religious fanatics who support the most right wing neo imperialist, aggressive & neo colonialism policies. Hes a joke
@@JohnKobaRuddy yup bro, hence why he’s comfortable,e abandoning his entire belief and cause bc of some random disagreement with left on really peculiar issues like Muslims and is suddenly cool with right wing vulgar company lol. He’s a scumbag and morally bankrupt vulgar propagandist on call for any racist, bigot, imperialist, greedy capitalist etc to hire to dehumanize whoever they wanna rob next.
He is talking about the mentality (paranoia, fear) of living in a totalitarian state. He is not citing specific instances with names and dates, but attempting to explain to the audience how a police state FEELS. He gives examples, like the cafe. The inner monologue of the downtrod serf: "You just desecrated a picture of the leader! The police are on their way now!" No one said this. This is an example of the panic in the mind of a slave who has screwed up. You misunderstood.
Its good that Hitchens is reminding us of Saddam's horrors. Though he just omitted one tiny bit of information. At the time of this purge, Saddam was a staunch US ally and just a few months later, US will be supplying weapons and money to him to wage a 10 year long war against Ayyatullah's Iran. He was doing this purge because he had backing from Washington.
Hitch does mention this. Not in this clip in particular, but he does mention this time and time again in his speeches. People will often use this "but the United States CREATED Saddam!" as a way to discredit our removal of his regime. But just because the US helped cause this problem doesn't mean we shouldn't help solve it.
The whole thing felt incredibly clear. He may not have been in chains but the tone and order of the purge of the Ba’ath party is something I’ve heard from multiple testimonials
@@michaels5425 God Hitchens fans are some of the cringiest, most religious people I've ever seen, I actually wanna throw up reading some of these comments
@@BillyMurray-hw2vz I don’t even like Hitchens, never read or seen his stuff. But since the fall of Saddam this opinion has been backed up pretty heavily. The heaviest argument I’ve seen in favor of Saddam is that economic growth is worth a deal with the devil. But nobody thinks he was even on the moral level of bureaucratic dictators
@sookmajoaby You people are doing exactly what Hitchens just said. You can't imagine what it is like, and thinking your country is headed there is delusional. How about explaining what country you live in and exactly who you think it's headed towards totalitarianism.
It always amazes me how former die hard revolutionaries that probably some of them withstood prison and even torture during previous regimes suddenly become so fearful for their own life and a mass hypnosis like this occurs.
Meh, Iraqi baathists were hardly revolutionaries unlike the Chinese communists or the Soviets or the Cubans. They never really struggled or fought a guerrilla war to gain power, most of them just made the right choice as to which party they must join.
@@midorimashintaro2092 Ur probably right but same thing happened during Stalins reign of terror when he seized total power as mentioned in the video after KIrovs murder.
As for placing culpablity with the United States for Saddam, are we saying Jimmy Carter supported the Saddam coup? They were hands off the middle east. The Soviets armed Saddam to the teeth, trained his armies and secret police. Every tank and gun was Soviet. There would have been no Saddam if not for the Soviet support to keep him in power.
That's a very interesting point, about Soviet armaments and training. Seems to me a far more involved form of support than the CIA helping Saddam come to power as an anti-communist. Like the entire Iraqi military - and after Saddam came to power - made to be 4th largest in the world, not to mention his secret police. It is at least a comparable involvement, and without as much room for "oh we didn't know he was evil!"
Okay. Let's be specific. Hitchens says: 1. There's a room of "perhaps 100 people." 2. Half of them were taken out. Both of these are obviously vague approximations, since he's conveying ideas and not giving a detailed history lesson. That would mean he implies about 50. The real numbers were 68 taken out, 22 killed. Some others tortured. Plus many, many more killed and maimed nation wide. If anything, Hitchens made Saddam seem better than he was.
Yup, because the United States of America doesn't have absolutely unlimited powers. We must take the World as it is, and change it in the manner we can, using our estimation of the effect we can have.
Oh no... Two strategic adversaries of our country are going to war... Isn't it obvious that we don't have much of an option there but help them bloody themselves against each other? Better yet if we can drain their treasuries while doing so they are weaker when they come out of it. Better yet still for stability in the region if the conflict ends in a stalemate. There's not very many other options.
I will never forget James Joyce's words on evil. "The allure of Sulphur", that there is an attraction to "evil" so to speak. I believe it to be so for it is the most evil figures of history which are never forgotten. Even in our time there is a certain style given to evil think of Darth Vader for example, he is the sharp dressed man of evil. And yes although he is just a work of fiction I am always in awe of his look, for he just embodies the attraction to "evil".
Thirdly, the people of Iraq appear just as unhappy today as they were under Saddam, the wider Middle East is still in turmoil and the "west" feels even more threatened than before the invasion. Saddam Hussein was certainly a bad leader but two wrongs do not make a right; the invasion of Iraq was wrong and if Bush, Blair and others really do care about justice, then they should do more to tackle human rights abuses and poverty in a hundred other countries.
The whole conflict between Iraq and the US could have been predicted: in the 1980s the US needed Iraq as a strong barrier against the Islamist Iran which then was seen as the greater evil. Since the war between these two countries ended in 1988, Iraq with its 4th largest army in the world and pan-Arabist ideology became not just needless but dangerous to American plans. It became a regional hegemon and thus the greater evil itself. It couldn't be left alone.
The truth is that he was only supported for a very short period by the US during the Iran-Iraq war, the Germans and the Russians were Saddam's greatest supporters. The US disavowed Saddam as soon as we saw what he was up to and concentrated on our alliance with the Saudis.
The US also supplied weapons and replacement parts through Israel to Iran, enough, in fact, to keep Iran's US-made air force - the largest american foreign air arm in the world - 70% operational through 8 years of combat. Britain also kept Iran's tanks and trucks in the fight. Iraq's main supplier was the Soviet bloc although it did get some weapons from the West. Over all Iran received vastly greater aid from the West than Iraq did. The strategy was succinctly described by Alan Clear - then UK Defence Secretary " The interests of the West were best served by Iran and Iraq fighting each other, and the longer the better".
@@p51abc The French were also big supporters of Saddam Hussein, and in a highly noticeable way with Mirage F.1 aircraft, Exocet missiles, and the Osirak nuclear reactor.
There are other details that vary slightly as well, as noted in the description. Human memory is not perfect. But unless you are arguing that there is a significant moral difference between the two scenarios, I don't see the point of your comment. Nor would I characterize these details as "a lot of BS." If anything, the more you look into the historical minutia, the more it seems like he didn't properly convey how horrific it all was.
I think the reason Saddam demanded his fellow Party members do the killing had two functions. First to demonstrate the danger of speaking out or disagreeing with Saddam and secondly to witness the mindless loyalty demonstrated by the participating in the killings. He was truly an evil person.
@@downhilltwofour0082 Yeah just like the WMD. I believe 66 were sentenced for treason. 22 were executed and it was by the court not the "survivors" shooting their colleagues or any of this Game of thrones drama shit. This is the true story.
man hitches was such a legend one of those old ennglish gentleman from a an era of old days ... he always presented history in such intersting way and probaly one of most intelectual people i have ever seen .... miss this guy ....
This is not quite what happened. The guy wasn't in chains, and he wasn't a broken shell of a man who begged for death. He was promised he'd live if he named names, which he did. A third of the attendees (not half) were taken outside and shot by firing squad (not by the remaining attendees). The snitch was also shot of course.
KeepItSimpleStupid Not just that but he said there was 100 people there and half of them were called out. Looks like a lot more than 100 and only, what 20? people got called out. I don't know if he actually watched the video.
Hmm... descriptions of this event (including Hitchens') are remarkably muddled (especially for a video-taped event). In the most lengthy version elsewhere here on RU-vid, Saddam himself reads the list (of about 10 names) and says that, as each name is called, the accused is to stand, say the party motto, and leave. Other descriptions of the event mention waves of names (more than the 10) were called. Have never seen even stills of the execution video and wonder if there really was such a video.
Yes, we all understand it was imaginary. That's intentional. He's trying to explain to the audience (who have zero experience) what totalitarianism FEELS like. And the panic, shame, and worry that is constant in the minds of the people who suffer under it. He is not citing a specific case, and that's why he talks of a generic leader and not "Saddam." You misunderstood the abstract ideas, nitpicked the concrete ones, and were arrogant while you did it. You suck at comments.
Setting aside "the big picture" this purge seems pretty fair for the time and place. Consider that assassinations and revolutions were par for the course the only real question is whether Saddam's Revolution via purge had popular support at the time. And it's fair to say that it did - or at least more support than any other coup, including the "coup" of Saddam's opponents giving the country's wealth over to Assad. Saddam had built up the country and had the popular support of the people as well as of their should-be representatives in the Baath Party. The People definitely were on Saddam's side and not on the side of those party members who wanted to join Iraq to Syria (partly in order to be free of Saddam). So Saddam held a public, recorded conference where people could state in public whether they agreed with Saddam or with the poor shmuck up at the podium confessing his little heart out. If Saddam truly lacked popularity he could have been killed on the spot -- or at least forced the soldiers of the republic to massacre the entire baath party PLUS ALL THE CAMERAMEN then and there. Saddam called their bluff and he won. Calling Menachem Begin's bluff, Iran's bluff, Luwait's bluff, the UN's bluff, and America's bluff did not work out quite as well for him. Because those guys weren't bluffing. But the Baath Party members who were negotiating with Assad behind the back of the Iraqi people (who at that time loved Saddam) WERE bluffing about the popular power they claimed to have. So Saddam could videotape the event and even leave the stage entirely to the "conspirator in chief" and have dozens of people arrested then and there....and nobody dared say boo. Well, unless boo is defined as "WE LOVE YOU SADDAM! PLEASE EXECUTE THE TRAITORS!!"
I was right about the coffee. And he never said 60. That hurt to realize, didn't it? "I'm guessing this talk was in support the American destruction of Iraq." It's about damn time. I mean, I always knew that was your real objection. Why else would you insanely demand such precision from a spoken speech that you can't even provide written? (68 and 22 btw, it was always in the video description. And the purge was nation-wide, with thousands more killed.) You still suck at comments.
Jim Gardner really ? Best at his ignorance and how much he is a pseudo intellectual...I'm Iraqi and while yes Saddam is evil in his tactics,, but basically he was like, if you don't talk about politics no one will hurt you... Compare it to ISIS now which kills you for having a different religion or even just smoking.. you choose.
I loved the Hitch and it was this story that originally got me interested in Saddam's purge. Whilst it's terrifying he completely sensationalises it here and, having seen the full clip, there really is no need to do so. Very strange.
He claims half the room was killed! 😂🤣😜 he’s a literary knob head he has to make everything seem like the opening sentence in a guardian article. Typical neocon trotskyist
@@JohnKobaRuddy Yeah it doesn't look any more dire than the high school Monday morning interrogation as to which students have done their homework over the weekend
It's noted in the description. At the time, Hitchens had only seen the footage once, years before this speech. In 2010 when I made this video, these clips were the ONLY ones of the actual meeting I could find after searching for weeks.
Loved the narration... but the comment about the ideological foundations of Ba'athist thought and its connection to Nazism / Fascism is complete bullshit.
@@BazookaTooth707 aflaq was an active member of the Syrian-Lebanese Communist Party, he participated in the activities of the French Communist Party during his stay in France and that he was influenced by some of the ideas of Karl Marx. Aflaq and other Baath leaders criticized particular fascist ideas and practices
@Sid the Sloth read my earlier comment. And I very specifically refer to the ideological foundations. The monster that Ba’athism manifested into is a seperate narrative.
No but there are many interviews of former Baath party members who were present when others were tortured and executed. but not translated. I assume you don’t know Arabic if you do i can send them to you.
'Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist'- George Orwell “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."- George Orwell 'Yes, making mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep”-Rudyard Kipling
They for real need to make a movie about saddam hussain. Cover the rise to power, his rule, the iran iraq war, desert storm, the invasion of 2003. Whole story of saddam hussain’s iraq.
You can't totally dismiss Saddam as a good leader, or a bad leader. His stance against Israel and the West was truly something else, and he had the balls to fight them, and the Shia extremists of Iran. However his economics were terrible, with a majority state owned economy, and people wonder why his economy was so shit, and it was shit before sanctions. In terms of this purge, it was absolutely justified, for all these men were supporters of Hafez Al-Assad and wanted Iraq and Syria to be unified under the leadership of Hafez Al-Assad, and Hassan Al-Bakr was in favor of this unification aswell, and the Syrian Ba'ath was allies with Khomeinei and the Mullahs of Iran, which would then lead to radicalize the Shia of Iraq, and Iraq would be like Afghanistan now, with a radical muslim leadership which would be subjugating women right now. Saddam had to take action, and prevented this from occurring, and fought against Iran. And women weren't forced to cover their heads with hijabs or burqas in 105 degree weather, unlike in Iran and Afghanistan. Saddam improved lives for women and literacy rates and was very liberal in terms of womens' rights. I can even give you a quote from Saddam: "Despite backward conditions which handicapped a great deal of her energies, the woman in our country have really played a distinguished part in the struggle of our people for liberation from colonialism and to get rid of reactionary and dictatorial systems, and to achieve the national aims in unity, freedom, and socialism." - Saddam hussein And here's another one: "Women make up one half of society. Our society will remain backward and in chains unless its women are liberated, enlightened, and educated." - Saddam Hussein
Unlike so many contemporary hacks, Hitch's research was largely based on first hand observations and brought a novel and original take on events. I wonder what he would have made of Trump.
as a history buff its a shame we dont get stuff like this anymore. articulate, straight to the point, and without biases like today stupid alt history wave. he would of had profound input on todays politics, rip mr. Hitchens
@@matthewpulickottil6831 because some of the claims he makes here are unsound. To begin with, this wasn’t “The moment Saddam Hussein took power,” as he claims, he’d taken power weeks earlier. This was a purge to consolidate his power. He also didn’t execute all of the men taken out of the room, as Hitchens says, only about a third of them were executed. The men also weren’t selected “randomly” as he says, this is a misconception, all of these people were selected for a specific reason. Hitchens also makes some inaccurate statements in general about Saddam Husseins regime, it was not a fascist state and it wasn’t modeled after Hitlers Nazi party in any meaningful way. It was a totally different kind of dictatorship. Stalin? Yes, Saddam was a huge fan of Stalin and shaped his government around Stalins administrative ideas, not Hitler. This isn’t to defend Saddam, he was a brutal dictator, but Hitchens is undoubtedly sensationalizing things a bit here in line with what I would describe as his eventual bias in favor of the war, he would eventually go on to make even more ridiculous claims, such as defending the viewpoint that Saddam had nukes years after the war ended
To be fair he ruled Iraq pretty good highest GDP per capita in the world. Just that all wealth went to his family like a true mafioso. Before American support wained.
Erik Johansen he’s the one who ruined all of this by started pointless wars. he started the 8 year long iran iraq war for literally no reason. iran didn’t attack any ships, they didn’t attack his army nothing. he hoped that because iran was hated by the entire world because of the islamic revolution that he could conquer and occupy iran’s oil fields. after 1 million people died from both sides and 200,00 soldiers from his army perished he finally signed a deal to end the 8 year long war. after this 8 year long war which stopped iraq’s economic success because of so much debt, he then decided to invade kuwait a country basically loved by the entire world. then heavy sanctions were placed on iraq which causes 200k people to STARVE to death and made iraq go from one of the richest countries to one of the poorest. if saddam just accepted the UN peace proposal the iraq would look like an entirely different nation today(sanctions were placed on iraq from 1990-2003 where iraq wasn’t allowed to sell any of its oil. iraq currently has a gdp of 200 billion, if it weren’t for saddam and his warsit might have a gdp of 1.3 trillion!!)
yes, the wars he started were pointless. Still, at least he managed the economy well during practices and kept all ethnicities from slaughtering each other. Threw brutal oppression still pretty good thou.
Erik Johansen idk about the economy part but yeah i agree during his reign shia and sunnis muslims didn’t hate each other. however most of my relatives who lived during saddams time say this wasn’t because saddam, it was mostly because the culture back then was different and the people back then were different and they didn’t fight or hate each other because they were different sects or ethnicities. there were some people who didn’t even know that islam had any sects because so many people didn’t talk about it. It was seen as extremely rude to even ask someone what sect or religion they were.however the new generation of iraqis which is obsessed with american culture pretty much refuses to learn how to live with different people and keeps spreading hate amongst different communities
There was no Baathist. There was only Saddam. Once he died, all the sectarian violence that occured post US invasion would have occurred, only much worse. And then, with no US and allied forces to defend Iraq, Iraq's lovely neighbors would have taken the opportunity to utterly rape the country.
And, Saddam held Iraq together okay thru the 80s. GDP was soaring high at the end of the 80s. Then he invaded Kuwait. That was a huge mistake. Iraq's economy never recovered from the international backlash (although, it's now almost halfway to where it was at its high point in 1989).
Didnt know about the second half. It was chilling enough to see members being led out by guards, but to know those who remained were tasked with executing them is so perfectly terrifying. Was this all while Sadam was our man in the middle east?
No, I think you will find that the Soviet Union armed and trained the Iraq Army, and that after Halabja and Al-Anfal campaign, that the US put the Iraq Government on the State Sponsors of Terrorism, while some US companies did supply re-cursor agents, they were duel use technology, which not only is used in the production of WMD, but also has legitimate use. Singapore, India, The Netherlands, and Germany supplied far more chemicals.
@914light You could also bring up his initial comments/opinion on Robert Mugabe, etc. Be sure to link records of his past views and if you believe he's ever been more than honest on changing them, (I'm more than open to you finding some, and it would change my opinion of him). Like the person you commented below, I believe the justification or morality of A war with Saddam, was there. The execution of one, and the motives of the ones who eventually did, flawed in so many ways.
This is sheer ignorance: in the picture for the clip, there are Arabs, Kurds (Taha Y. Ramadan) , and Assyrians (Tariq Aziz) all belong to the same party. You have no idea what are referring to.
