Hitchens Nails The Libs and The UK Islamicists

[Annie]

Mostly he has it right:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169592/nav/tap1/

Don't Mince Words
The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 1:11 PM ET

Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously.

Instead, almost every other conceivable explanation was canvassed. The June 30 New York Times report managed to quote three people, one of whom attributed the aborted atrocity in London to Tony Blair's foreign policy; one of whom (a New Zealand diplomat, at that) felt "surprisingly all right about it"; and one of whom, described as "a Briton of Indian descent," was worried that "if I walk up that road, they're going to suspect me." The "they" there was clearly the British authorities, rather than the Muslim gangsters who have declared open season on all Hindus as well as all Jews, Christians, secularists, and other kuffar or infidel filth.

On the following day, July 1, the same newspaper informed us that Britain contained a "disenfranchised South Asian population." How this was true was never explained. There are several Muslim parliamentarians in both houses, often allowed to make the most absurdly inflammatory and euphemistic statements where acts of criminal violence are concerned, as well as several districts in which the Islamic vote keeps candidates of all parties uneasily aware of what may and may not be said. True, the Muslim extremist groups boycott elections and denounce democracy itself as profane, but this does not really count as disenfranchisement.

Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.

I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion.


...

 

[onedomino]

It is a cultural and religious war. Radical Muslims v. the rest of the planet; especially if you are American, Australian, Western European, Israeli, Indian, Russian, or even Chinese. We refuse to recognize this war for what it is. Certainly a global cultural-religious war is unthinkable in the 21st Century, right? It is here. Burkas or death. Radical Islam even preys on itself, e.g., Iraq. Wherever radical Islam comes in contact with another culture, atrocities abound: western China, Chechnya, Moscow, Bali, Kashmir, Iraq, Spain, UK, Canada, America. This war has flared up, but it has been smoldering for centuries.

 

[Annie]

It is a cultural and religious war. Radical Muslims v. the rest of the planet; especially if you are American, Australian, Western European, Israeli, Indian, Russian, or even Chinese. We refuse to recognize this war for what it is. Certainly a global cultural-religious war is unthinkable in the 21st Century, right? It is here. Burkas or death. Radical Islam even preys on itself, e.g., Iraq. Wherever radical Islam comes in contact with another culture, atrocities abound: western China, Chechnya, Moscow, Bali, Kashmir, Iraq, Spain, UK, Canada, America. This war has flared up, but it has been smoldering for centuries.

Agreed. On their part, religious, but on the Western side even atheists are involved.

 

[Truthmatters]

Hitchens is a pompus ass

 

[Annie]

Hitchens is a pompus ass

That brings much to the table. Thanks for the contribution.

 

[DeadCanDance]

That brings much to the table. Thanks for the contribution.

Note about internet and message board ettiquette: When you use an imflammatory title like "Libs Get Nailed", and then post something from a noted drunk, who's been wrong virtually everytime he predicted something about iraq, or the middle east, don't expect elaborate and mature responses.


Personally, I'd be hard pressed to name any person who's been wrong more often on Iraq, and the middle east more broadly, the Christopher Hitchens. It's pretty much a wasted of my time to read him....I don't bother to listen to people who are almost always wrong.

 

[Annie]

Note about internet and message board ettiquette: When you use an imflammatory title like "Libs Get Nailed", and then post something from a noted drunk, who's been wrong virtually everytime he predicted something about iraq, or the middle east, don't expect elaborate and mature responses.


Personally, I'd be hard pressed to name any person who's been wrong more often on Iraq, and the middle east more broadly, the Christopher Hitchens. It's pretty much a wasted of my time to read him....I don't bother to listen to people who are almost always wrong.

Entitled to your opinion, personal attacks noted, as are the lack of substantive points.

 

[Larkinn]

That brings much to the table. Thanks for the contribution.

It wasn't much less to bring to the table than you saying "mostly Hitchens has it right".

By the way...I like Hitchens a lot, but this "obvious fact" is merely an assumption he is making.