Atheist Heroes?

[Reforged]

I would argue Hitchens was pretty far from a hero.
He made every effort to argue for the war but not once did he question the indiscriminate use of shock and awe upon zones rich in civilian targets because that would of undermined his own points.
It may well have been necessary but a hammer was used instead of a scalpel and the civilians paid the price.

Because we don't have any of those scalpels...what we have are hammers.  UAVs don't hit what they fire at as reliably as we tell people.  Our sat's aren't the all-seeing eye we sell them as.  We only say that shit to scare charlie.........everyone knows that, right?

I've tried to reconcile that in a way that makes sense where he isn't a total asshole but its not possible to. He didn't acknowledge it, he didn't even address it.

Perhaps he didn't see the need to explain to people who think we have scalpels that what we have are, in fact, hammers?  

 He just brushed over it so he could push the agenda he wanted pushed. Enemy targets got taken out and friendly casualties were minimized.

A better situation can be imagined....but so what?  Taking out enemy targets while minimizing friendly casualties is a damned fine thing, even if it's not the best scenario we can imagine.  In my imagination me and the other guy decide to have a beer rather than shoot at each other, we have alot in common after all, he and I.  In reality, if I manage to shoot him and miss -most- of the people standing around him that's a good day.  

The ends justified the means. Thats what he cared about.
He was an incredible orator and an asset to making sure atheists had a voice.
Eloquence however is a poor substitute for humanity.

Humanity is wide enough to encompass warfighting, feel the power of the dark side of the force my friend....a warhawk might be suffering from an overabundance of humanity, rather than lacking any.    His tagline was simple.  Iraq was a failed state, we had a duty and the means with which to pursue it.  We -did- pursue it by taking out enemy targets while minimizing friendly casualties.  That's a pretty solid tagline.  He was exceedingly critical of our management of the war, btw......particularly our plans for withdrawal, as he felt that it would be disastrous for John Q Iraqi.  People seem to forget that advocating for the war and against withdrawal were the only significant deviations from his position and the continuing position of the anti-war crowd.  

My favorite line-
"Matters in Iraq have degenerated much faster and much more radically than that; now the Shiite majority wants to screw the Sunnis with Bush's (more monogamous, for what that's worth) member."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p..._jinx.html

Everything you just typed is based on the assumption that our covert and intelligence agencies are so inept, so utterly devoid of competence that there is no way we could of resolved this surgically and ahead of time. To support his position you then have to compound that with the admission that you would rather foreign innocents die than friendly troops who volunteered for war. That minimizing damage to troops is more important than minimizing collateral.
At no point was that conceded and at no point was a case made why another possibility simply was not possible therefore justifying the deaths of countless innocents. The issue was ignored. That is not insignificant but it was treated as if it was. He did not address it either because he couldn't or because he didn't consider it important enough.
It is not the position that I am opposed to. I am not morally superior, I can take it or leave it. It is the intellectual dishonesty with which it was pursued. Just because something undermines your case doesn't mean you get to just leave it unaddressed. That should have been beneath him.
Apparently it wasn't.