Hitchens on the London car bombs: They meant to kill women
posted at 2:34 pm on July 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Eh, I’m not convinced. Granted, they did target the nightclub on “ladies’ night” but the only evidence Hitch offers to suggest that was more than happenstance is a plot from 2004 in which another nightclub was targeted by another cell with a different type of bomb where one of the jihadis said something in a recorded conversation about “slags dancing around.” If the two this weekend were out to kill women, presumably they would have attacked a girls’ school in Glasgow instead of the airport.
Which doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read his piece. His subject is the left’s reluctance to critique a Third World culture, no matter how vicious and regressive it might be:
On the following day, July 1, the [New York Times] 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…
The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself “phobic” in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an “ethnic” dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.
The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim “community” alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name. For a start, it is the female victims of this tyranny who are “disenfranchised,” while something rather worse than “disenfranchisement” awaits those who dare to disagree.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Allah, I have to agree, saying they were specifically after women I think is a stretch. I would guess like they would go after a purely women specific place, as you suggest.
That said, his overall point is well taken.
Bad Candy on July 2, 2007 at 2:43 PM
The thing that I have never understood is that the “progressives”, those that live alternative lifestyles, feminists or anyone with a different value system etc. would be the first to be targeted and eliminated under sharia.
Yet, these people either defend or by their reluctance to offend another group refuse to condemn such craven acts.
I find that odd.
Trooper on July 2, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Why is that like in there? Crap, I sound like a Valley girl…and I’m a d00d!
Bad Candy on July 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Makes perfect sense to me. Jihadists seem to have an inherent hatred for, and fear of, anything female that doesn’t cower in supplication to them.
In other words, Western women terrify them. Our culture has allowed women independence, and they just can’t stand that sort of blasphemy before Allah.
Vyce on July 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM
He’s wrong. Ladies Night is a phenomenon aimed at luring ladies with cheap admission, in order to lure men with the cheap ladies. Hitchens is a great writer and often the lone voice of reason on the left, but on this point I think he’s wrong.
As far as these animals are concerned we’re all just infidels – gender is unimportant.
Martin on July 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Allah,
You guys should try to get an interview with him (Hitchens). I think he’d do it.
PRCalDude on July 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM
While it is clear that islamic culture is built on a foundation of sexual insecurity among its males, I doubt that the jihadists really care who they blow up. They tend to be more concerned with numbers, themselves, and just the sight of blood. They do like to kill people in a way that particularly repulses and disgusts civilized people, but they are willing to take anything they can get. The jihadists would be happy to blow up a bunch of babies, if they thought that it would get a rise out of the West, but they would be just as happy if they veered off the road by mistake and ended up massacring a group of senior citizens in their 90’s. It’s just the killing that gets them hot.
progressoverpeace on July 2, 2007 at 2:54 PM
“Different value system.” Nice.
You’re right, those on the left never criticize murder, genocide, or acts of terror. Odd indeed.
Nonfactor on July 2, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Still that is the way they are doing it in Muslim countries. They make the women so afraid of beatings, death or disfigurement that sooner or later most of them fall into linemerely to survive. They also seem to set out to attract men with the most potential for overt sociopathic behavior. The “bigwigs” just sit back and give the orders minimizing their exposure to harm. There IS a terrorist war going on and any candidate who refuses to acknowledge this or who lacks the stomach to deal with it should be shunned at all costs.
jeanie on July 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Since only women can be immoral in their dress, etc., by islamic ‘reasoning’ [sic] Hitchens has half a point.
Maybe he’s just trying to wake up the sleep-walking infidel ‘feminists’?
But any serious criticism of the dismal dogmas of Mohammadism is always needed and welcome.
He turns a phrase well and memorably.
And polemics are as vital as bullets in an ideological clash.
Islam is lame.
profitsbeard on July 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Hitch better watch his back, the netbags and nutbags will be after him if he keeps on telling Truth to Power.
benrand on July 2, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Same mindset that pours acid on the faces of women? I don’t see why they wouldn’t specifically target women with the gall to muck about unescorted. I think there is merit to the theory.
Krydor on July 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Oh, they criticize it. Just not when they’re the perpetrators.
soundingboard on July 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Yeah, it doesn’t appear as if Hitchens has been to many bars/clubs. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but he should stick to the things he knows.
Assignment for tonight: compose 3 in-character Hitchens pickup lines.
James on July 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I just emailed the Christopher Hitchen’s link to a peronsal friend who happens to be a NYT reporter being sent to London to cover the bombing. I doubt it will do any good. Even if he listens to Christopher, he’s but one person in an organization.
The NYT reporter really is a great guy. I suppose we sometimes forget such details here. I even do myself. The NYT reporter is willing to give a little too much credence to people who claim to be oppressed. I just hope that if we keep making the point about Islamic misogyny, homophobia, cruelty to animals, and so forth, eventually the left will get the point. Maybe as a gay person, I have a self-interest in this, but I’m not sure that this is the time to pursue anti-gay amendments to the US Constitution, when painting Islam as evil for its homophobia is very helpful in winning this war. We can at least try to win the “hearts and minds” of our own moderate left.
thuja on July 2, 2007 at 3:08 PM
profitsbeard on July 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Sorry I must disagree, Islam is not lame, sick, perverted and homicidal yes, lame no.
doriangrey on July 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I love how Hitchens portrays a situation so accurately and intellectually. The Muslim religion classifies the female gender as Nth class citizens (where N > 1) yet we never hear a peep from NOW. The leftist denial of this harsh reality exists simply because it is trendy.
jediwebdude on July 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Now why would anyone in their right mind think radical Muslims would specifically target “loose” women?
TheBigOldDog on July 2, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Ladies night? It sounds more like they meant to destroy a sausage fest.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM
PS – there was a lot of talk that day on Fox, from their people in London, about the target being “shags” before Hitch came on later (or maybe the next day) repeating the same thing.
TheBigOldDog on July 2, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Then again, they may take a look at Planned Parenthood, and figure that not only won’t dead babies shock Westerners, but there’s already too much competition in the dead-baby market.
ReubenJCogburn on July 2, 2007 at 3:22 PM
doriangrey-
I mean under the dura mater. As in lame brain.
The rest of your observations are on target.
(But don’t make as simple a bumpersticker by the simple expedient of adding an e to Islam.)
profitsbeard on July 2, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I can see that, in the case of attempt to murder people in a crowded night club on ladies’ night could be construed as an attempt to target women. In that case, the way the double standard living Muslims, such as those who engaged in the attack on 9/11/07 entertained themselves with wine, women, and skullduggery, the day prior to their attack-mass murder-hijackings, in which the Holy Muslim Jihadists got drunk and watched strippers, exotic dancers, or whatever else their depraved minds drove them to do, it would not be unreasonable to see how this set of Homicidal maniacs would choose a target rich in offending western females out wearing western clothes, looking provocative, and seen as sluts and offenders, and violating the “laws” of Islam, that target of the Western Nightclub on Ladies night.
If only the “saintly” Muslims would actually live like the saints that they delude themselves to be! Perhaps then they would not murder in the name of Religion, or in the name of Allah. Perhaps they would treat women with respect and not with such misogynistic animosity, with such vile disdain.
Perhaps the self absorbed, “We are Holy; You are the Devil” Muslims would actually walk the walk, and actually behave like holy people, with love, patience, and compassion, and not be so absorbed with slaughtering everyone, engaged in their 24/7 obsession with blood and murder.
William
William2006 on July 2, 2007 at 3:27 PM
And as others pointed out, “ladies night” exists to get more ladies in, which gets more men in, resulting in a full establishment.
In other words, “Ladies Night” is the night the bar will be packed, thus the best night to bomb it for maximum effect.
taznar on July 2, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Correction.
The date “9/11/07″ was a typing error.
That should be 9/11/01.
A apologize for the error.
William
William2006 on July 2, 2007 at 3:29 PM
They meant to kill
womenINFIDELSWhich of course means women,children, and whatever men are left in the UK
unseen on July 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Of course, if there were healthy relationships between men and women within Islam there wouldn’t be as much sexual frustration, which helps pave the path to impotent rage and sexual deviance (sex with animals and babies) – along with the whole “death to everyone” dogma that they have going.
Blight on July 2, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Here is another
NON EVENT OF THE NO EXISTENT TERROR THREAT Bush and Blair and the pliant media HYPE and lie about to keep up their phony war on terrorcar bomb – that silly dunderhead “YUPPIE terrorist” car bomber succeeded…Topsecretk9 on July 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Did anyone else see the article right here on “Hot Air” about the “extortion tapes” that Hamas has? The tapes purportedly show Fatah and PA figures cheating on their wifes with beautiful young women and having homosexual relations with young men. So much for the HIGH morals of the Muslim leaders.
TruthToBeTold on July 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Just an observation. From the looks of some of these hosers, I would say their chances of conjugating with females without some sort of drastic repression is pretty much nil.
Bobber on July 2, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Only odd if you assume the hype that the Left champions humanity. But perfectly rational if you assume the truth, which is that the Left cares not one whit about humanity, but about achieving power to summon a marxist world order and is therefore playing this end game by the oldest calculus in the book: An enemy of an enemy, is a friend of mine.
Therein lies the answer to this conundrum. This explains why, for instance, NOW will villify western, Christian men who talk about Long Dong Silver, but say nothing untoward about muslim men that behead school girls under a philosophy that exterminates all free females. They don’t care about freedom – for any gender. They care only about subverting the underpinnings of western society.
An enemy of an enemy is a friend of mine. War by proxy. The modus operandi of the Left.
jihadwatcher on July 2, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Why would they do that, don’t they consider women expendable less than a man?
right2bright on July 2, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Hitchens touches upon behavior among the Western Left that is symptomatic of the rigid ideology, ungoverned emotions, moral rudderlessness, false sense of superiority, intellectual bankruptcy and psychological avoidance mechanisms that comprise the cocktail (or stew, take your pick) of their thinking and exressions.
Refusing to recognize the enemy for who and what they are – and willfully yet falsely seeing in them a humanity if not nobility which they do not possess – is the inevitable byproduct of this kind of thinking. It also leads too often to the awkward position of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the very people who, if they had their way, would subjugate if not exterminate their Western liberal apologists.
These anti-Western Westerners – say, for example, the “Raging Grannies,” “GLAAD” and “Jews Against Zionism” – who proudly march in step with the Jihadis to display their own contempt for the oppressive West and its penultimate expressions of inherent evil, America and George W. Bush – deliberately blind themselves to the reality that the Jihadis they so proudly defend would:
- Beat the sh*t out of the Grannies until they put on a burka and never left the house;
- Gleefully stone the GLAAD types to death, and
- Gas without a second’s hesitation the self-hating “anti-Zionists” along with all the other “sons of monkeys and pigs.”
Or as George Orwell so aptly put it: “One must be of the intelligentsia to believe such things; no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 2, 2007 at 6:04 PM
You forgot the most important ingredient: the rampant, uncontrollable, irrational guilt that fills the psyches of much of the Western Left, leading them to suicidal policies.
… and then there is the whole anti-competitive streak that runs through the left – an artifact of having been ppicked last for teams on the playing ground and having been beaned in the head in the first 20 seconds of ddodgeball …
progressoverpeace on July 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Your points are well taken; good catch on both counts.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 2, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Thanks, Spurius.
The guilt aspect is one of my pet bugaboos. I look at this war as:
(Individualism, Guilt, Atonement) versus (Tribalism, Shame, Revenge)
I believe that much can be explained through this simple model.
progressoverpeace on July 2, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Now that is funny.
Pablo on July 2, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Sure they too. But it’s mostly the imaginary kind. Real genocide they don’t care about, other than to see it through.
Pablo on July 2, 2007 at 7:54 PM
cardindex7 on July 2, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Sure. But that’s a personality flaw, not a problem with the concept of competition. Verbal communication is a great and important thing, but it gets rather tiresome when someone ALWAYS wants to talk, too. :)
progressoverpeace on July 2, 2007 at 8:24 PM
So if the bombs would have just killed men it would have been ok?
hadsil on July 2, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Insulting the people we need to convert reminds me of a middle school bully in special education.
& the accusation is pretty obvious false. Hollywood actors are usually leftist loons. Yet, they are fine physical specimens.
thuja on July 2, 2007 at 10:47 PM
There are many different psycho-pathologies that collide and form the modern Left. “Competition phobia” is one of the more well-represented pathologies, though certainly not the only one.
Anyone who is for competition could not possibly side with the left, because the left works as hard as possible to deny any competitions being allowed for anything. The left likes nothing about competition – it hates winners and it empathetically grieves for the losers.
No one who truly respects the notion of competition could adopt such an ideology, unless for purely cynical purposes.
And I’m not trying to “convert” anyone. Political correctness is for the Left. My descriptions of the formative periods in the lives of many modern liberals (the anti-competitive wing) are quite true, and quite to the point. Such people will never become “conservatives”, no matter how much reason is thrown at them, because they are competition-phobic. It is not rational. It is a phobia that cannot be cured.
progressoverpeace on July 3, 2007 at 12:16 AM
progressoverpeace-
If they could get their immune systems to follow their “non-competitive” theory, they would all be gone in a month. And no great loss.
Not understanding that every cell is an efficient killing machine, they live in Cloud-Cuckooland.
And failing to grasp that every breath is the murder of some microscopic critters accidentally inhaled, they dine on the products of LaPuta (Jonathan Swift’s maghical floating science city).
Forgetting that Gaia caused Five Great Extinctions of almost all the happy, peaceful critters, dancing lightly upon the Earth, who came before us. Trilobites to Pterodactyls.
(They don’t call Nature a Mother for nothing.)
profitsbeard on July 3, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Comment pages: