Galloway vs Hitchens

I haven't seen anything about this on the 'net, so I thought I'd write about it.

1. Hitchens does say that Juan Cole has never set foot in the region. He also says that Cole changes his mind every week (or was it two weeks?).


2. Though I disagree with Hitchens' views, he did come across as the more level-headed of the two. The way he held his ground against the hostile audience was admirable. He even got away with insulting them a bit ("you can make all the zoo noises you want...").


3. Galloway is the master of insults: "You are the first recorded example in natural history of a butterfly metamorphosing back into a slug!". LOL!


4. I think Hitchens was incorrect in labelling Syria's occupation of Lebanon as illegal. To the best of my knowledge, they went in with the approval of the UN and the western powers. Whether they overstayed their welcome is another story.


5. I think it's a reflection of the maturity of western values that such a vitriolic, ad hominem debate can even be conducted. Try something like this in India, and you will end up with the debaters trading blows, questioning each other's parentage and what not (to say nothing of the mayhem inflicted by their supporters).