From Hizb ut Tahrir's website:

The Islamic Caliphate is always attacked as spreading Islam by the sword forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam and its values. However, unlike secularism the Islamic system deals with different religions in a unique way creating harmony amongst them, enabling them to live in peace with each other as existed in the Caliphate before. Non-Muslims have a citizenship contract with the Caliphate called dhimma. This contract does not require them to give up their religious values. We will not say to non-Muslims in the Caliphate you must adopt Islamic values or leave. Rather the only requirement for non-Muslims is to obey the law of the land outside of their personal lives and worship.

Is that all? Nothing to worry about then.

Claire Short is often described as "outspoken" and sounds caring and down-to-earth, rather like a district nurse. She can fake sincerity extremely well, but is in fact very devious and borderline anti-semitic.

Peter Tatchell is someone I've come to respect in recent years. I didn't used to like him because he favoured "outing" closet gays. This was not only intrusive, but also an abuse of the word "outing" which to me meant a trip to the seaside in the cold rain with a thermos flask of stewed tea and cheese sandwiches wrapped in foil. However, I now admire his courage and integrity, and above all his consistency. He is very much in favour of free speech, for example, and includes in this free speech the right to say that homosexuality is wrong.

Posted by: Interested at March 4, 2006 9:12 AM

Hizb ut Tahrir is an organization that deserves more, and much noisier, attention.

Posted by: Hugh at March 4, 2006 9:16 AM

Hizb ut Tahrir has come under a great deal of scrutiny from blogs, especially Harry's Place. Here Harry's Place exposes how Hizb ut Tahrir promoted the case of Shabina Begum, the Luton schoolgirl who wanted to wear the jilbab, and how Dilpazier Aslam, a Guardian journalist with links to H u T systematically whitewashed the group and their involvement in this case.

Most at HP see Hizb ut Tahrir as pernicious, but what they do not seem to appreciate is that their views accord fully with Islam. This booklet, for example, contains nothing that could not be found at Ali Sina's Faithfreedom site.

I read their website regularly and find it refreshingly honest.

Posted by: Interested at March 4, 2006 10:03 AM

They're not "extremist." It's just the usual subdue, behead, besiege, lie to, tax, and humiliate, yadda, yadda, the infidel.

If I lived in the UK I wouldn't purchase any new clothes, especially belts, or anything fancy. Whatever you do, don't start building a two-story house any time soon. There are some new rules you might want to study.

Posted by: Beagle at March 4, 2006 12:13 PM

I can think of a couple other things to call Clare Short, "outspoken" isn't one that first comes to mind. I'd be embarrassed to put it in writing though.

Posted by: jsla at March 4, 2006 12:32 PM

She's right on is Ms. Short, a career politician. Whatever are her principles – has she any left?

The Muslim vote is vital to her future in getting re-elected next time around. She doesn’t care what they do as long as they vote for her, so hence the sucking up to likes of H u T.

Her credibility evapourated long ago after the ending of the sycophantic support of Tony Blair came her Miss Piggy style walkout from the Cabinet. The Labour party if it had any scruples would de-select her. She is a disgrace to the party.

Regarding the meeting at the Houses of Parliament, it’s a pity so few of our elected representatives turned up to question the slimy lying hypocrites of H u T.

Posted by: Turbinehead at March 4, 2006 12:35 PM

Disgrace -- that's one of the words... One of the more decent words that came to mind...

Posted by: jsla at March 4, 2006 1:12 PM

Interested: "Most at HP see Hizb ut Tahrir as pernicious, but what they do not seem to appreciate is that their views accord fully with Islam"

That's abundantly clear from reading through the HP thread. The way DavidT jumped on "polishexile" is ridiculous. And look at the smackdown on the posters broaching the subject of limiting Muslim immigration. Apparently westerners are to have no say whatsoever re the composition of their societies. And if the situation were reversed and Christians were flooding by the millions into Muslim countries building churches and stating their clear intentions to make those societies Christian, would these same righteous HP posters smack down Muslims protesting at the transformation of their societies and call them "racist"? I seriously doubt it. Are these folks even familiar with the recent poll showing 40% of British Muslims favoring Sharia law? Their minds are so damned open their brains are in serious danger of falling out.

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 1:24 PM

Well according to certain articles I have read today she is, po-faced, puritanical, posturing, bombastic, ego-driven, a spoilt diva, petulant, vain, arrogant, self-centred, an unprincipled disappointment, and (my favourite)"Clare, you see, is very serious about her private life and her principles but mostly about the issue closest to her heart. Herself....lacking in humility or principle, Short put relentless ambition before conviction"

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 4, 2006 1:28 PM

About Clare Short's volte face over Iraq, it was said, "She wrestled with her conscience - and won."

Posted by: Interested at March 4, 2006 1:38 PM

Clare Short: a face in need of a burka.

Posted by: Cato the Elder at March 4, 2006 2:03 PM

I Don't Understand the British Mindset

Why are Muslims given special consideration over Christians, Jews and others? I'm still trying to figure out why the British sympathize so much with extremist Muslim groups. Is it because of latent anti-semitism and anti-Hindu sentiments among Brits?

Perhaps we should remind Britons once more of the Oldham riots, where Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims attacked whites and Hindus, and of the bus bombings. Perhaps they need a refresher course.

Posted by: david at March 4, 2006 2:54 PM

In England we call the likes of Short 'a right old bag'

Posted by: FallingProphet at March 4, 2006 3:23 PM

"She wrestled with her conscience - and won."

I love this one !!!

Yes, why are some British people so in love with the Radical Muslims ? Cf. my very favorite, the fascinating Yvonne Ridley, who thinks the talibans have beautiful eyes.

And why are some French people so in love with the Radical Muslims ?

A few suggestions:
- when you don't love what you are, you have got to love someone else
- when it is fashionable not to love the West and to be "tolerant" with the Muslims whatever they say or do, it is nice to be with the cool ones and not nice to be called an old racist pig.
- when you live in a rich, free society, and that you are a little spoilt brat, it is exciting to be friend with the bad ones.
- when you are a politician and you need votes, it is useful to flirt with the Muslims.
- when you are scared of people who use intimidation and physical violence, you'd better become friend with them, because who knows, they might not kill you.
- when you have two brain cells fighting each other in your head, it is difficult not to be confused.
- when you are a weirdo, it is nice to become a religious fanatic.
- when you need to do business with the Arabs, it is adviced not to offend them, because you need to sell them some stuff to buy yourself this new jacuzzi.
- when life bores you, it is nice to go to remote countries and learn to fight.
- when people don't like you, it is nice to become part of a new community with plenty of new sisters and brothers.
- when you are tired of being free, it is nice to become a slave

etc etc !

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 4, 2006 3:51 PM

David -

As I keep reminding everybody on this site "the British" do not give preferential treatment to any one group. Our politicians do that and, as a consequence, fewer and fewer of us are turning out to vote. "Don't vote, it just encourages them" is a badge that I think will be seen more and more as elections go by.

Although most people here and overseas are still willing to believe that the UK is a free democracy the reality is that the UK is a barely functioning oligarchy. Subconciously most British voters know this and that is why turnouts at elections are falling catastrophically. Most of us are alienated by, and excluded from, the political processes. Freedom and democracy have slowly been removed by this and previous governments. Remember, most of the members of this UK Government were members of the Communist Party (or one of the other extremeleft organisations before 'converting' to the Labour Party. Does anyone really believe that leopards can change their spots?

In my household, and in many others, Clare Short is referred to as "a right little gusset typist". It's only the chattering classes and the hard of thinking PCers that show her any respect now. This latest prank with Hizb ut-Tahrir just proves what an opportunistic incompetent the woman really is. Given her extreme left past is it really that wonderful that she couldn't care less about freedom and democracy?

Posted by: Certiorari at March 4, 2006 3:57 PM

The Aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir

Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bay’ah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through da’wah and jihad.

The Party, as well, aims at the correct revival of the Ummah through enlightened thought. It also strives to bring her back to her previous might and glory such that she wrests the reins of initiative away from other states and nations, and returns to her rightful place as the first state in the world, as she was in the past, when she governs the world according to the laws of Islam.

It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.

Posted by: islamophobic pride at March 4, 2006 4:58 PM

joiesauvage -- Great post, as usual!

Posted by: jsla at March 4, 2006 5:33 PM

Caroline . . .you have a stronger stomach than I, having read through all the comments on HP's thread.

Being from the US, I was unfamiliar with MP Short, so I looked her up via yahoo images.

Interestingly, about a fourth of the images show Ms. Short has quite a wardrobe of scarves . . .or potential hijab. Hmmmmm.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 4, 2006 5:49 PM

"She doesn’t care what they do as long as they vote for her, so hence the sucking up to likes of H u T."

Well she's in for a nasty surprise then. AskImam would immediately inform her that a woman's place is in the home, not in politics!!

As for the French and British sympathy for Islamists, I think it's basically fear. If I lived in a country full of muslims, where any criticism of them was pounced on as anti-PC and labelled racist, I'd need a lot of courage to speak up.

Posted by: Lilith at March 4, 2006 6:01 PM

Perhaps the fact that Calre Shot's appearance would be greatly enhanced by the wearing of a compulsory Burkha explains her support for the introduction of sharia law in the UK.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/clare_short/birmingham,_ladywood

Emma Soames, the Independent on Sunday: "Behind the exterior of political harridan and parliamentary bovver girl, there undoubtedly beats a heart that is not so much bleeding as haemorrhaging for her fellow men and women, combined with an intellect guided by DEEPLY HELD OPINIONS!"

Deeply held indeed- she signed EDM1087 proposed by the odious Gerald Kaufman
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29436&SESSION=875

She follows the Labour parties motto
Better to appease those who whould kill you and attack those who mean you no harm and will not retaliate.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at March 4, 2006 6:35 PM

justamomof4 - thanks for the "potential hijab" link. I remember when western women were expected to "set" the table. They successfully rebelled against that. Apparently some of them are now getting a hankering to "set" their heads instead. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to the table.

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 7:17 PM

Clare Short probably wants to reward the 7/7attakers for the killings of innocent Britains. What a cruel , inconsiderate politicians ,the Brits have in their midst! I am shure,the angry ghosts of those sixty British citizens,killed in those sub-way and bus bombings will haunt the house of this lady,while she eats,and sleeps. I wonder why these Britanins became so passive and useless.

Posted by: rafia at March 4, 2006 9:20 PM

Ah, justamof!

Thank you so much for these images! Now I know who she is: Just look at the type! Very much like that NY-lawyer who smuggled messages in and out of prison for Sheik Rahman who wanted to bring the WTC down in the early nineties!
They could be twin sisters! Both are ugly,totally deranged & hateful of the west and want to bring the democratic system down.

Tie them up and cover them with burkhas, include Peanut Carter, Blowjob Clinton, Al Gore .... and whack them with steel cables like the Taliban used to do: You'd always hit the right one...

Where do they breed these creatures?

Can't we eliminate the nest?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 4, 2006 10:48 PM

"when you don't love what you are, you have got to love someone else"

-- from a posting above.

Here's the bottom line, the crux of the problem we, the West, find ourselves in: The Tu Quoque used by the Muslims against us would have little effect, had we not become, over the past 50-odd years, so skilled at Ego Quoque.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 4, 2006 11:38 PM

I had a travel warning from the British embassy in me E-mail stating that Hizb ut-Tahrir where organizing this Gig

Yet the public travelling warning said this

Large demonstrations organised by several Islamic organisations are scheduled to take place throughout Indonesia on 5 March 2006. In Jakarta, tens of thousands of people are expected to march from the National Monument (starting in front of the Gambir railway station) to the US Embassy. You should avoid these areas and any other large crowds and public gatherings elsewhere.

Well just two hours ago we get this

Thousands join anti-US protests in Indonesia
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/03/05/thousands_join_anti_us_protests_in_indonesia/
Indonesian media said similar protests, all organised by the Islamic group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, were held in at least seven other cities, though they said only one involved more than a thousand people.
Specific issues raised by the protesters included a call for Indonesia, officially a secular state despite an 85 percent Muslim majority, to adopt Islamic law;

The Goverment in Britian must be full of Haw Haws

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/

Posted by: shiva at March 5, 2006 3:22 AM

I think it is worth noting that by inviting these characters into the parliament building, Short will be drawing a lot of attention to HuT.

There are still millions of people unaware of what this outfit stands for.

The publicity they are now receiving will stimulate more people to investigate what its all about and raise the issue profife of the Religion of Piss. There is such thing as bad publicity

Posted by: Sir Cumfrence at March 5, 2006 4:22 AM

"As for the French and British sympathy for Islamists, I think it's basically fear. If I lived in a country full of muslims, where any criticism of them was pounced on as anti-PC and labelled racist, I'd need a lot of courage to speak up."

And that, Lilith, is why you should do everything in your power to prevent your country from becoming a Muslim country in the first place. But unfortunately, if you criticise Muslims and Islam in the UK, you get branded a racist by those who don't know any better, and refuse to learn that which might frighten them. And if you lived in a Muslim country and you criticised Islam, you'd be lucky to be seen as merely "anti-PC and labelled racist". You'd be much more likely to end up with a scimitar through your neck.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 5, 2006 5:39 AM

. . . the Islamic system deals with different religions in a unique way creating harmony amongst them, enabling them to live in peace with each other as existed in the Caliphate before. Non-Muslims have a citizenship contract with the Caliphate called dhimma. This contract does not require them to give up their religious values.
[quoted from HuT website by post above]

The Hizb says that the dhimma does not require "non-Muslims ... to give up their religious values." Does that mean that they agree to Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount and in the Tomb of the Patriarchs at Hebron [at the Tomb in Hebron Jews do presently enjoy freedom to worship at appointed times], at the Tomb of Rachel in Beth Lehem or Joseph's Tomb in Sh'khem ["Nablus"]?? How about Greek Orthodox prayer at the Hagia Sophia church in Constantinople?? etc. etc.

Posted by: Eliyahu at March 5, 2006 6:55 AM

I never thought I would agree with Certiorari on anything, but s/he has the British system of governance (or rather organized looting) dead right. Only I would underline the economic reasons behind the oligarchy. It is government of the people; by the scum; for the thieves. Privatization is a replay of a scheme that has played out over century, from Henry VIII's looting of Church property to the Enclosure movement: what Chesterton called "the revolt of the rich" against common or state ownership, and the constant conspiracy of the parliamentary oligarchy to pass the wealth of the nation to their and their friends' pockets. The most recent triumph of the oligarchic looting tendency is the change in the Liberal party's leadership. Ming the Merciless Campbell destroys his still moderately left-wing leader Charles Kennedy by leaking to the newspapers his drinking habits; replaces him to the leadership; and promptly starts talking about "aspirational" classes that are to be encouraged and about "modernizing" the party - and gets them to accept the privatization of the Post Office (which is sure to worsen services, make them more expensive, and be generally a scourge). In other words, the third party is now aligned on the exact same positions as the majority and opposition. Political debate no longer exists.

As for Claire Short, she is the typical muddle-headed leftie whose dominant passion is to feel in the right. She is not the worst of them by any means, but her mental and moral clarity is best defined as an old-fashioned London pea-souper: thick, obstructive, and polluted.

Posted by: Paolo at March 5, 2006 11:07 AM

"As for Claire Short, she is the typical muddle-headed leftie whose dominant passion is to feel in the right. "

Is that muddle headedness somehow different from the typical muddle-headed leftie whose dominant passion is to defame "privatization" in favor of collectivism? Or the muddle-headed leftie whose dominant passion is to mislabel UK democracy as "oligarchic" and then rail against its supposed "oligarchic looting tendency"? Or labelling Charles Kennedy as "moderately left-wing" (I can barely type for laughing)? Or the muddle-headed leftie whose dominant passion is to use coy code words and pink (wink wink) prose like "organized looting" or "I would underline the economic reasons behind..." or "It is government of the people; by the scum; for the thieves" or "Privatization is a replay of a scheme..."?

Just wondering. Cus it appears to be the exact same kind of typical muddle-headed leftie thought by a typical muddle-headed leftie... Or am I missing something?

Posted by: jsla at March 5, 2006 12:49 PM

The problem is that we're not even shocked! by Claire Short's behavior.
One post-er described her as "typical muddle-headed leftie"

More proof of my contention that the liberal Establishment is pro-Islamic

Posted by: dococ at March 5, 2006 5:04 PM

dococ-

"...the liberal Establishment is pro-Islamic..."

In the most suicidial sense.

Helping promote a "religion" that is intoleant, illiberal, puritannical, uninquisitive intellectually and patriarchally-poisoned to the root.

In bed with a cult that these "multicultural" mavens see as a useful force that will help them to destroy their political ideological "conservative" opponents.

In the same absurd way that Muslim propagandists utilize the razzia behavior of the Nazis to excoriate the Jews for they way they supposedly treat the "Palestinians".

Both ignore the facts for their over-riding goal.

The (pseudo) "liberals" join with those who will gladly purge these useful idiots once the Muslims achieve absolute illiberal Islamic power, so fixated on their own short-sighted revenge fantasies.

The Islamo-propagandists, who would love to nakedly emulate the Nazis if they could, pretend to be the 'minority victims' of an overwhelming oppressor when, in truth, there are a self-proclaimed 1.2 billions members of their "army of Allah", while the Jews number only a few million in the region, and less than 13-15 million worldwide.

I understand the Muslims more than these mock-"liberals".

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 5, 2006 6:43 PM

jsla - I thought this was about opposing jihad. If you want to defend what passes for government in the Looted Kingdom - and please reflect on the unlikelihood of two people as distant in views as Certiorari and myself agreeing on this - do it somewhere else. Ah, and have a look at past threads where I was defined as a murderous reactionary, a fascist, a queerbasher, and God knows what else.

Posted by: Paolo at March 6, 2006 4:01 PM

"As for the French and British sympathy for Islamists, I think it's basically fear" Lilith wrote.

Lilith, if I may suggest... as far as France is concerned, I have a more sadistic interpretation: the feeling of superiority. The French want to ally the Arabs in order to win over America. As a matter of fact, America bothers the French, because it is too much of a challenge, it goes too fast and the Americans are too successful, too free ! Irritating for the French. So they almost have hysteria crisis as far as the US is concerned, the US is Evil, the US is to blamed for just everything which is happening in the world (including OUR Muslim riots) etc.

But the Arabs ! Poor, not many Nobel Prices, no freedom, nothing but very nice dances... Isn't it pleasurable to pretend loving them ? Like a good patronising country we are, nostalgic of past Glory, we can say: "The Arabs are nice people" and invite them to dominate, patronise them better (we think).

And Islam ? It is sooooo exotic ! (so backwards ! )

The boring, usual, sad symptom of the Western tourist arriving in a Third World country and claiming: "wow it is sooo beautiful, people here may be poor but... they are sooooo HUMAN" (and we are soooooo richer !)

Little problem, however: the Muslims are going to eat us up. And it will be a deserved punishment lol.

(but I don't feel related to all that... I love successful nations and free nations and rich nations .. I don't need the Third World to feel better in my declining country. I want the best for everybody and I don't see what is beautiful in little kids begging for money).

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 6, 2006 4:54 PM

"As for the French and British sympathy for Islamists, I think it's basically fear" Lilith wrote.

Lilith, if I may suggest... as far as France is concerned, I have a more sadistic interpretation: the feeling of superiority. The French want to ally the Arabs in order to win over America. As a matter of fact, America bothers the French, because it is too much of a challenge, it goes too fast and the Americans are too successful, too free ! Irritating for the French. So they almost have hysteria crisis as far as the US is concerned, the US is Evil, the US is to blamed for just everything which is happening in the world (including OUR Muslim riots) etc.

But the Arabs ! Poor, not many Nobel Prices, no freedom, nothing but very nice dances... Isn't it pleasurable to pretend loving them ? Like a good patronising country we are, nostalgic of past Glory, we can say: "The Arabs are nice people" and invite them to dominate, patronise them better (we think).

And Islam ? It is sooooo exotic ! (so backwards ! )

The boring, usual, sad symptom of the Western tourist arriving in a Third World country and claiming: "wow it is sooo beautiful, people here may be poor but... they are sooooo HUMAN" (and we are soooooo richer !)

Little problem, however: the Muslims are going to eat us up. And it will be a deserved punishment lol.

(but I don't feel related to all that... I love successful nations and free nations and rich nations .. I don't need the Third World to feel better in my declining country. I want the best for everybody and I don't see what is beautiful in little kids begging for money).

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 6, 2006 4:54 PM

Paolo:

I'm only trying to be helpful.

I wrote : "...it appears to be the exact same kind of typical muddle-headed leftie thought by a typical muddle-headed leftie... Or am I missing something?"

Shall I add "murderous reactionary, a fascist, a queerbasher, and God knows what else"? I didn't see direct evidence of these in your post! Apparently I AM missing something!

As for "opposing jihad" I would first say GREAT! But I'd also say that it's imperative for Westerners to have clarity of thought pertaining to Jihad -- Clarity -- both for the implicated Western flaws through which Jihad has gained a foothold, and clarity for the Islamic reasons underlying Muslim Jihad. If your peregrinations were an example of Western clarity, again, I must have missed something.

When you lambast the thoroughly pink and always wrong Clare Short (a good and admirable thing to do), but then embark on a diatribe calling for many of the types of things she embraces: nationalization, collectivism, and further, refer to Charles Kennedy as a "moderately left-wing leader", and finally compound these already compound reversals by calling Clare Short a "muddle-headed leftie" (albeit a fine and accurate description) -- well... After illustrating your own tour de force of what seemed to me to be exemplary leftist espousements, how could I not mention it!?

I love the idea that you're against the Jihad. But I firmly believe leftist ideas, pseudo-liberalism, and cynicism are deeply implicated in the advent of Jihad in our Western domains. And I worry how firmly fixed anti-Jihad can be if it's possible to gyrate as I thought you did in your post.

There was also an ultra cynical defeatism displayed in Certiorari's post with which you agreed... I would suggest reading the excellent article highlighted recently here entitled "Defeating Defeatism - The End of the Phony War" by Wolfgang Bruno:

http://wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com/2006/03/defeating-defeatism-end-of-phony-war.html

It fisks the defeatism and cynicism of many in the world today, and especially in Europe. At one point he says "What we need now is anger. Anger gives you energy, instead of the resigned passivity bred by defeatism." You began fullheartedly agreeing with a defeatist cynic. Then proffered the same threadbare leftist ideologies which Clare Short, the "muddle headed leftie" embraces. (those were your words...)

Socialism isn't going to fix the problem of Muslim Jihad.

Hold onto the anger, and recognize the complicity of such leftist politics in the dilemma. If Europeans allow their anger to turn to impotent cynicism -- they are DOOMED.

Posted by: jsla at March 6, 2006 7:24 PM

"But unfortunately, if you criticise Muslims and Islam in the UK, you get branded a racist by those who don't know any better, and refuse to learn that which might frighten them. "

Has anyone yet taken a libel suite because of this? If not, it's time if someone has never said anything racist by only criticised Islam.

Posted by: Lilith at March 6, 2006 9:25 PM

jsla: what you are doing is advancing your petty party political Thatcherite shit under the veil of being against jihad. And you are so full of yourself that you cannot even understand what you are doing. Open your mind and stop relating everything to your ignorant contempt of what you call "socialism" and your even more ignorant tolerance of rapacious elites. You complete fool, do you not understand that the principle of looting the country for the elite's advantage is exactly at the unconscious bottom of the English uppper classes' ancient sympathy for Islam? Looters always understand each other in the end.

Posted by: Paolo at March 7, 2006 12:06 AM

Paolo:
Aside from sidestepping every point I made, that was a great response! The purple prose, overbroad generalizations, and name calling were vintage Paolo too! Thanks for proving my points.

Posted by: jsla at March 7, 2006 11:51 AM

Paolo, my personal observation about the socialists is that they are unable to accept a debate. You are proving it.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 7, 2006 5:13 PM

jsla, joliesauvage: you are both twerps. First, I am not a socialist, I am merely someone who does not share jsla's vile anarchist superstition that the State is always bad and the Market always good. Also who is not over and above keen on being fleeced by a conspiracy of bureaucrats, capitalists and bought-and-paid-for politicians. None of these things amount to socialism, and to call me a socialist is just name-calling in the service of your execrable and ignorant devotion to the Darwinian forces of the unfettered man-eating god The Market. If you want to know what my political position is, I am a Catholic: work it out (with some reference to Thomas Aquinas and Leo XIII), if you have enough reading to be able to understand the difference. And if anyone can live through the privatization of the railways as it was carried out in this country and still imagine that privatization is anything but organized theft and destruction, then they are self-blinded to an extent that nobody, let alone myself, can do anything about.

Posted by: Paolo at March 7, 2006 5:42 PM

Point, Set, MATCH!!!

Posted by: jsla at March 8, 2006 12:08 PM