- Pickled Politics - http://www.pickledpolitics.com -

Hizb ut-Tahrir and Iranian TV

Posted By Sunny On 20th September, 2007 @ 5:19 pm In Media, Current affairs | 38 Comments

After my [1] criticism of Press TV earlier this week, they were anxious to prove to me they are not just a propaganda front for the Iranian government (!!) and can have honest debates. So they’ve invited me on a show this weekend to discuss whether the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned or not. That should be fun, [2] like last time.
Update: my view on what do with HuT is [3] here and [4] here.


38 Comments To "Hizb ut-Tahrir and Iranian TV"

#1 Comment By Leon On 20th September, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

I’d love to you, them and that guy from MPAC go at it on one of these shows, that’d very amusing…

#2 Comment By Natty On 20th September, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

What good does a ban do??

I agree with Deborah Lipstadt in the Irving case when she said that even though she disagreed with his views it is better they are heard.

Banning people simply achieves nothing and can lead to a dangerous underculture.

Who decides who gets banned?

What is the criteria?

Is the government then deciding who speaks for a particular view?

What purpose does it serve?

If you ban HT should you ban all national movements?

#3 Comment By fugstar On 20th September, 2007 @ 6:22 pm

Press tv is different from irna. I think its great that the iranians are doing shows. They seem to be one of the more productive ummah societies of late.

The fact they apparently want to platform you speaks volumes.

#4 Comment By Cameron Young On 20th September, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

Sunny - you may also want to discuss the Sufi Muslim Council which was being pedalled by the Blair Government and backed by links to the neocons.

Strange how they seem to represent so few people yet have a vocal presence on the BBC.

Interestingly none of the mainstream Sufi Organisations are affiliated with them.

Craig Murray linked to this blog which has an interesting number of questions about them:

[5] http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com/

#5 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 1:28 am

What about Greg Dyke’s commets on the sttae of news media in the USA.

The USA doesn’t have much truely independant media. Fox News has simply bullied the press towards the right.

The Bush Govt doesn’t tolerate dissent and press passes are withdrawn for tough questions.

Why worry about Iran when the land of the free doesn’t have independant media that is able to question and critise government.

Also Why is it that Murdoch can criticise economic migrants to the USA when he himself is one. He changed his nationality to become a US national in order to expand his business empire yet some poor Mexican can’t do the same.

#6 Comment By Anthony On 21st September, 2007 @ 1:30 am

Sunny, I was on Press TV once - by phone! - the programme was enjoyable and about John Gray’s dreadful new book. I managed to get in a salute to all those who want their own democracy in Iran and who want to achieve it in their own way. If we’re going to oppose the forcible expansion of the Caliphate so too we should question the forcible expansion of human-rights lite democracy by Bush (and even if HT say that countries will only join he Caliphate democratically there does not seem to be any way they might peacefully be allowed to change their mind). Anyway, its too late to go on about that but don’t forget to express some solidarity with the people of Iran.

#7 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 1:52 am

Anthony - where is the forcible expansion of the Caliphite?

If the Muslim world wishes to have it’s own style of government why should the West oppose?

Surely the whole point about choice is that the vast majority of the Muslim world want this and that is their choice.

By forcing democracy down people’s throats is hardly conducive to good world relations.

Which democracy in the world acts truely for the benefit of its people most act for the benefit of elected officials.

Democracy has failed to address many of the greatest moral issues of the past 50 years.

#8 Comment By Sunny On 21st September, 2007 @ 2:04 am

Democracy has failed to address many of the greatest moral issues of the past 50 years.

Um, I’ve not heard many silly statements today so this is a good candidate for the silliest. Democracy is a system of governance, not a guide for moral issues.

And if you mean that because there has been lots of conflict, then Democracy hasn’t solved anything, well then neither has religion.

If the Muslim world wishes to have it’s own style of government why should the West oppose?

Most Muslims want democracy. Not only does that come up in polls consistently, that’s why many of them want to emigrate here.

Cameron Young: Sunny - you may also want to discuss the Sufi Muslim Council which was being pedalled by the Blair Government and backed by links to the neocons.

Well, the discussion is about HuT, not the SMC. But now that you mention it, why don’t you ask who has been funding the Muslim Council of Britain for ten years? Who has been inviting them to government meetings and sending them on trips abroad? Who gave them 10s of 1000s of pounds for their website? Erm… the Blair government. Whoops.

#9 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 2:15 am

Democracies such as the USA, Britian etc say they want to be a force for good and change the climate which affects and blights the lives of people across the world.

Yet democracy has failed to help Africa, solve the Palestinian issue etc.

Indeed in many cases democracy has failed the people who have put it in place.

Plus democracy is held up a a beacon which is better than religous based systems but it has many of the same faults. So again Sunny if democracy is being compared to religion and you say religion hasn’t done better that is hardly a ringing endorsement for democracy.

>Most Muslims want democracy. Not only does that come
>up in polls consistently, that’s why many of them
>want to emigrate here.
Well this is the silliest argument today now ;-)

Most Muslims like most people from poor countries want to emigrate for economic reasons and not for democratic reasons.

Many Indians have democracy but still want to migrate for economic reasons.

Have you ever considered that Muslims want democracy to remove the people the West has put in place and not as a long term form of governance.

#10 Comment By Sunny On 21st September, 2007 @ 2:57 am

Yet democracy has failed to help Africa, solve the Palestinian issue etc.

Erm, let me try explaining this again. A democracy is a system of government that doesn’t just apply to the USA and UK. In a democracy, the people have the vote on the laws and elect the lawmakers, and ultimately the power comes down to them.

Try and seperate that from US and UK foreign policy because the two are not the same. There are plenty of countries across Europe which are democratic.

Yet democracy has failed to help Africa,

The African problem is that of poverty and dictatorship. Their problem is that they dont have democracy.

solve the Palestinian issue etc.

A fight over land. What’s that got to do with how a system of government works?
What do you prefer? A Caliphate? A monarchy?
Dictatorship? Will that solve all the worlds problems?

Most Muslims like most people from poor countries want to emigrate for economic reasons and not for democratic reasons.

Maybe, but they still want democracy over a religious style of government like a Caliphate.

#11 Comment By Elaine On 21st September, 2007 @ 4:39 am

Natty, surely the whole point is that if it’s not a democracy, how do you KNOW that’s what the people want?

#12 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:09 am

Elaine in the USA they have a two party system, which is defined as democracy. The elected representatives hardly represent the people which is why voting is reducing.

Same in the UK.

Sunny - you are holding up democracy as “The System” and disparage all other systems of government as bad. Let me explain again democracy fails to address the will of the people. It failed with Blair even on domestic issues such as university fees. He promised one thing in his manifesto and did another. That is just one example there are many others.

The UK has effectively a 2 party system like the USA, France, Germany etc.

As democracy matures older established parties simply control power and swap between each other.

I am simply saying to you that it isn’t quite the answer you make out. In theory in represents the will of the people in practise it represents self-serving politicians.

However I don’t think you quite grasp that democracy itself becomes a tool of rich powerful parties bankrolled by wealthy donors to do their bidding.

Can John Doe in the USA become President by being in anything other than the Democratic or Republican Party - No.

Can Jane Doe in the UK or France or Germany become leader by not being part of one of the powerful parties?

Israel/Palestine - Land Problem yes but not solved due to powerful backing by lobbying in the USA and UK of politicians who in the UK do not represent the will of the people. Most polls show consistent support for Palestinians to have their own state. Govt Policy from Thatcher onwards is to support Israel

Africa - Poverty and Dictatorship - Most Dictators backed by the West with Western Bank Accounts to keep their loot in. UK and USA people wanta resolution Goverments talk about it but don’t do much. Where is the will of the people??

These problems highlight that even over decades politicians haven’t represented the will of the people on these issues.

Democracy relies upon elected officials to do what their consituents say.

If democracy is what you say why are voting numbers steadily declining and along with confidence in elected officials when the system works so well!?

#13 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:13 am

Democracy is simply a way of making people believe they have a say in the affiars of state which is still left in the hands of a small band of officials.

USA - 2 Party State

UK - 2 Party State

France - 2 Party State

Italy - multi party no effective govts

Israel - see above

Germany - 2 party state - backed by smaller parties

Denmark - 2 party state - backed by smaller parties

etc.

All have poor votign numbers, voter apathy and polls show a lack of confidence in elected officials.

#14 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:20 am

Sunny - see the following:

[6] http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,,2173922,00.html

Hah! Muslims want democracy so they vote for parties which oppose it in ever increasing numbers due to the policy mess-ups of the west.

And you were saying how much they loved their democracy.

#15 Comment By Elaine On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:35 am

Sure, democracy is a clumsy tool, and the more people are involved (i.e. the US with 300m), the clumsier it is, but what are you saying is better - dictatorship? theocracy? It’s easy to find examples where democracy doesn’t seem to reflect the will of the people as you perceive it, but what is the alternative? Government by referendum on every subject?
Yes people don’t vote much if they don’t feel their vote has much influence, but I think another factor is that they aren’t very involved in the issues.
And by the way in the US it’s not just the President who’s elected - at local level there are all sorts of elections - mayor, police chief, schools chief - and here people can certainly have an effect.

#16 Comment By Random Guy On 21st September, 2007 @ 10:53 am

Sunny said: Most Muslims want democracy. Not only does that come up in polls consistently, that’s why many of them want to emigrate here.

Careful there Sunny. Many of them want to emigrate here because they have tribal, corrupt governments. Not because of religous considerations. I think if you asked most Muslims in muslim countries (because that is who I am assuming you are talking about), their ideal world would lie between democracy and a caliphate…now THAT would be interesting to see. I think saying that Muslims simply want democracy (and I am not sure if we are even talking about the same ‘democracy’ here - remember that the West does not have a monopoly on the term ‘democracy’ - surely not historically) is a slight distortion.

#17 Comment By sonia On 21st September, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

surely that discussion has been had so many times its getting to be old hat now isnt it? everyone’s said the same thing, don’t ban them. keep them where we can see them. and if any member says something that is incitement to hatred or whatever - simple, use the law and arrest them.

#18 Comment By Sunny On 21st September, 2007 @ 1:50 pm

Elaine in the USA they have a two party system, which is defined as democracy.

A democracy is a lot more than a two-party system. It is also freedom of speech and expression and a constitution that allows you civil liberties, freedom to challenge the government, legal support etc etc.

India has about a 100 parties, but that doesn’t mean its a better democracy. Eventually, because of uncertainty, people gravitate towards two main ideologically different parties. Just because not enough people in this country vote for the Lib Dems doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant.

I am simply saying to you that it isn’t quite the answer you make out. In theory in represents the will of the people in practise it represents self-serving politicians.

No one said democracy was perfect. It is an imperfect system because people are prone to corruption and inefficiency. That doesn’t detract from my argument though. It is the least worst system.

If democracy is what you say why are voting numbers steadily declining and along with confidence in elected officials when the system works so well!?

Voting numbers in the recent French election were very high.
It used to be high in this country, but we’re going through a crop of bad politicians.

It failed with Blair even on domestic issues such as university fees.

A democracy doesn’t mean you can have everything. Everyone chooses their representatives based on a bundle of choices.

If you want more referendums, move to Switzerland.

Hah! Muslims want democracy so they vote for parties which oppose it in ever increasing numbers due to the policy mess-ups of the west.

They vote for the MB because they see their own main govt as corrupt. Not because they want less democracy.

In Africa AND Palestine, the will of the people is still that they want a democracy.
You really are being obtuse. You’re blaming ‘democracy’ when you really want to blame US and UK foreign policy. The will of the people IS democracy.

If you want to give people people more say - fine - so do I. That’s called democracy. And it’s called improving the system so it works better.

#19 Comment By TheFriendlyInfidel On 21st September, 2007 @ 2:49 pm

See Sunny, you can take sides in debates. Good luck in the dicussion, please don’t go easy on peoples endorsements of slavery, rape, stoning, amputation etc under the correct “theological context”.

You cannot take the high moral ground by sitting on the fence.

TFI

#20 Comment By fugstar On 21st September, 2007 @ 4:22 pm

Muslims would like wise governments, all the rest is an engineering problem. I dare say their non muslim compatriots would like less foolish governments too.

Democratonocracy does not solve all problems. I’ve seen it empower the greatest scumbas of a society, divide people and families, impoverish nations and confuse people through infantilasation and titilation. As a technique for temporary leadership change it has merits, though is not sacred.

the rest is shameless and uncreative ideological marketting.

#21 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

-See Sunny, you can take sides in debates. Good luck
-in the dicussion, please don’t go easy on peoples
-endorsements of slavery, rape, stoning, amputation
-etc under the correct “theological context”.

Yes Sunny also don’t go easy on peoples endorsement of lying and going to war, killing innocent people and calling them terrorists, lobbies who buy politicians favours, 3 and out life sentences, business over healthcare and welfare, slavery all under the correct democratic context.

Democracy TFI is as good as the people who run it and frankly there are not many of them across the world.

#22 Comment By Sunny On 21st September, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

I’ve seen it empower the greatest scumbas of a society, divide people and families, impoverish nations and confuse people through infantilasation and titilation.

The world is imperfect because people don’t necessarily behave how you want them to. One of these days you guys might actually realise this instead of dreaming about silly utopias.

#23 Comment By fugstar On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

thank you for the crash course in realism Obe Wan.

#24 Comment By Natty On 21st September, 2007 @ 5:55 pm

[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/

The Policeman of the World whom TFI loves and holds up as a beacon and the true reality of immunity no mater what.

#25 Comment By Roger On 21st September, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

“Muslims would like wise governments, all the rest is an engineering problem.”
Getting a “wise government” is the problem- that’s assuming everyone agrees about just what is a wise government. If you get a wise government how are you going to make sure it stays wise- and who defines what is a wise government as times change?
Many Muslims no doubt define a wise government as a muslim government. There’s a lot to be said for giving them one- it’d cure them of any delusions about the virtues of isilamic government eventually, for one thing. However, as muslims disagree strongly with one another about just what would constitute a properly muslim government it wouldn’t apply to all- or even many- muslims. From everyone else’s point of view nearly every party proposing to form a muslim government intends to make everyone- including nonmuslims- behave in what they think a properly muslim way and to bring the virtues of muslim government to the whole world whether they like it or not. We aren’t very enthusiastic about this.

#26 Comment By fugstar On 22nd September, 2007 @ 4:07 am

“theres a lot to be said for giving them one”

wow

#27 Comment By Natty On 22nd September, 2007 @ 5:21 am

“There’s a lot to be said for giving them one- it’d cure them of any delusions about the virtues of isilamic government eventually, for one thing.”

There is an inherently superior attitude here as if only the West knows about the virtues of wise government and no-one else does.

It stinks of a colonial attitude of superiority.

Yet the West itself has had few wise governments and myths about seperation of church and state continue. Governments aim in the West is not necessarily to be wise but is to survive in power.

Throughout the West there have been very few wise governments that people truely look upon fondly so it says a lot for the delusions you have about government here. Would you consider Bush’s term wise government or even Blairs? Would you consider for example the term of Richard Nixon wise? What about Howard in Australia?

It is hard to even think of a wise government so telling Muslims that your Government is wise just looks silly when they look across at the people being elected.

Italy has rarely had a wise government in decades!

This superior attitude of a colonial Europe needs to stop and blaming immigrants for everything and telling them you are much wiser and better and superior isn’t going to help.

#28 Comment By Sunny On 22nd September, 2007 @ 6:08 am

Yet the West itself has had few wise governments and myths about seperation of church and state continue. Governments aim in the West is not necessarily to be wise but is to survive in power.

I’m assuming that since you’re not posting this from Saudi Arabia or something, what you actually mean is white people. Right?
Anyway, I thought democracy wasn’t just a ‘western creation’?

So now you’re confusing me Natty. Because you’re in the west and criticising ‘the west’ (whatever that means). On top of that you’ve now started using the word ‘west’ (instead of ‘democracy’) when you mean ‘US foreign policy’.

This is really a stupid debate. Yes its a superior attitude but firstly a democracy IS the least worst system… because you haven’t told us a better solution. You want to tinker around with what kind of democracy you want? Fine, we all do.

it’d cure them of any delusions about the virtues of isilamic government eventually, for one thing.

I’m actually in agreement with Roger.

People who want a pure religious government should be given one just to show how stupid they are. Theocratic governments never work and if you want to use the example of the Ottoman empire, as HuT constantly do, then please read up on its bloody history, never mind the fact the world has vastly changed since.

I’m as anti-imperialist as anyone. But if the alternative to democracy is a Hinduism inspired kingdom in India, a Khalistan in Punjab and a Caliphate in the Middle East, then those pining for those religious empires deserve all the derision they get.

#29 Comment By Natty On 22nd September, 2007 @ 8:38 pm

Sunny - any system is reliant on good people to run it. You keep picking the worst possible examples of theocratic rule to compare with democracy. I am simply highlighting that there are also bad examples of democracy.

Any system has to improve the quality of people’s lives, provide justice, welfare and healthcare as well as basic necessaties. Also it needs to provide equality, education etc.

You keep going back to foreign policy but even if we don’t look at foreign policy the some systems of democracy have simly failed people.

In the USA which is exporting democracy around the world, it itself has a fairly archaic system of voting. It is suspectable to lobbies. It doesn’t provide healthcare for it’s citizens.

In India the world’s biggest democracy is probably being run where hundreds of millions of people don’t even know who they are voting for as they are ill-educated. in over 50 years democracy has not changed these peoples lives or existence.

It isn’t just about foreign policy.

My opinion and I appreciate I am in the minority here is that any system has to be for the betterment of the people and to provide justice for all. Be that in the USA, UK, India, Israel, the Middle Eats whereever.

As regards foreign policy it again has to be just and for the betterment of people.

Quite frankly Pakistan isn’t ready for democracy and each time it has been tried it has failed. So your assertion that it is the least worst system doesn’t hold true.

The least worst system depends on the circumstances it may be democracy, dictatorship, theocracy etc. but as long as it is just and for the betterment of the people.

BTW I am not from Saudi Arabia.

I would also remind you that democracy also brought to power Hitler, Mussolini (I think), Bush, Blair etc.

Democracy has also caused much war across the world as nations compete for influence and power all in the name of putting in democracy.

Sunny if you truely believe that democracy is the best system then go to Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Africa etc. and tell all those who have been killed by democratic countries that democracy is the best system.

I will pay for your flight ticket to Iraq, so please go and tell the mothers whose children have been killed in the name of establishing democracy that it was worth it.

Again I say to you that a system is only as good as the people who run it. Doesn’t matter what the system is as long as it provides the needs and welfare of the people.

#30 Comment By douglas clark On 22nd September, 2007 @ 9:51 pm

Natty,

You said:

“Sunny - any system is reliant on good people to run it. You keep picking the worst possible examples of theocratic rule to compare with democracy. I am simply highlighting that there are also bad examples of democracy.”

WTF? Right back at you. Could you give one example of ‘good’ theocratic rule? I am simply pointing out that there has never, ever, been a good example of theocratic rule. Next question?

#31 Comment By Natty On 23rd September, 2007 @ 4:11 am

Early Muslim rule in Spain is considered by some historians to be good. The rule in Toledo for example where knowledge flourished.

Technically there is theocratic rule in the Vatican now which is its own state which some Catholics would consider better than Italy’s own democratic rule!! Joke :-)

Even if there is no good theocratic rule that depends on the people running the system who themselves maybe corrupt.

There are few examples of good democratic rule.

Also give some examples of good Democratic rule?

Then compare that to the large numbers of bad democratic rule. Is Iraq now a good example of democratic rule? Why is Iraq unable to decide its own destiny and for example not able to proescute criminal activity by US Nationals?

Is the USA considered good democracy? India? UK?

#32 Comment By Sunny On 23rd September, 2007 @ 4:57 am

Is the USA considered good democracy? India? UK?

There are over a 100 countries that are considered democractic. Why not look at Switzerland, Scandinavia, Germany, France etc? Even India has a vibrant democracy in that there are hundreds of parties that try to represent every sub-section of the population. The existence of poverty is NOT a failure of democracy. It is a failure of the economy. The two are different.

any system is reliant on good people to run it.

There can never be a perfect system, and anyone who tries to attempt one is stupid. All we can is create a system with checks and balances so that if stupid people get in, they’re chucked out.

Early Muslim rule in Spain is considered by some historians to be good.

I’m sorry, how long ago was that? Even then, you’re looking at it through rose tinted glasses and through a different era. Just because many Muslims consider it to be a nice era doesn’t mean it was a great theocracy. It was a monarchy. Big difference.

Let me put it this way. A theocracy relies on people generally having the same interpretation of a particular religious belief, and then imposing that across the population. In modern societies imposing something is near impossible unless you do it through coercion. The beauty of a democracy is that it allows people who they want to live with only the proviso that the state provides Public Goods (defence, roads, education etc).

The US, by the way, is trying to provide universal healthcare to its citizens. But I’m trying to get through your head that the US medicare system is not a failure of democracy (since its a very flexible system) but about how Americans choose to structure their healthcare system.

In case you haven’t noticed, we have a diff healthcare system but still a similar democratic structure. Geddit? Healthcare system has jack all to do with ‘democracy’. Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word democracy first. That might help.

Technically there is theocratic rule in the Vatican now which is its own state

It’s a small city state and people there still have to adhere to Italian laws. You don’t have any examples. You have Iran, which is a repressive theocracy… and that’s what you’ll get if you have any theocracy.

#33 Comment By fugstar On 23rd September, 2007 @ 5:24 am

Iran is great, i hope the west doesnt go all progressive, western and destructive on it,and i hope it continues to improve.

I hope that the Asiatic hordes of the UK dont serve as useful idiots to perpetuate the lie that Iran deserves a good murdering.

Did anyone read that Monocle article about the first flight from tehran to caracus? Shame on so called sissy sunni salafi secular countries in the region for deserting iran.

#34 Comment By Roger On 23rd September, 2007 @ 1:19 pm

You are mistaken if you think my contempt for islamic government is “colonial”, Natty; after all, as- say- the HuT draft constitution shows, an islamic government would aspire to expand and bring the benefits of islamic rule to the rest of the world. Imperialism and colonialism are the terms for such policies.
The assumption among its admirers seems to be that somehow a glorious ummah will appear in the whole muslim world and will govern so wisely that everyone else will want to be ruled by them and the world will be happy ever after. I don’t think it would be like that. A more likely prospect is an islamic party- say the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt- coming to power through a mixture of electoral and other factors. Either they behave in a properly islamic way and alienate foreign powers with the result that they have to pay full price for anything bought from the USA and EU and other foreign countries and collapse in famine and civil war or they follow the Turkish course and become a party very much like any other with a very pale islamic tinge. Another possibility is a military coup in one muslim state will lead to a bunch of nutters announcing that they are the caliphate- a sort of hyperactive Taliban with delusions of grandeur- and the muslims of the world owes adherence to them. Everyone else pays no attention to them. Either they persecute the inahbitants of the country in the name of an ever narrower religious orthodoxy and bankrupt it with deranged economic policies or they decide to engage in offensive jihad and invade neighbouring countries and eventually, after a lot of corpses, show the futility of their purposes and are overthrown.

The most important form of wisdom a government can show is by recognising how small is the wisdom with which the world is governed and accepting that they will be got rid of eventually when they fail as they inevitably will. A government that believes they have an absolute source of wisdom to guide them won’t even have the negative virtue of knowing they will fail. Harold Macmillan was asked what most influenced a government’s policy. “Events, dear boy, events.” he said in surprise. All the “wisdom” supposedly found in the quran will do no good against what actually and unexpectedly happens.

#35 Comment By Sunny On 23rd September, 2007 @ 5:32 pm

I hope that the Asiatic hordes of the UK dont serve as useful idiots to perpetuate the lie that Iran deserves a good murdering.

Let’s hope the so-called ‘anti-imperialist’ hordes of the UK don’t serve as useful idiots for the Iranian regime to continue oppressing its own people under the name of religion.

And by the way, this member of the ‘Asiatic horde’ has never believed Iran deserves a ‘good murdering’. Keep living in cuckoo-land to support your own prejudices if you want to. Doesn’t bother me.

#36 Comment By Jagdeep On 23rd September, 2007 @ 6:10 pm

Did anyone read that Monocle article about the first flight from tehran to caracus?

Persian ladies like to hang out on sunny Venezualan beaches in bikinis — flights will be packed out.

#37 Comment By TheFriendlyInfidel On 24th September, 2007 @ 12:16 am

Gosh Natty is SO cute! Can I have one as a pet?

TFI

#38 Comment By fugstar On 24th September, 2007 @ 11:04 am

You neednt identify yourself as a useful idiot bhai. The anti imperialist lot, at the end of the day arent of much consequence, its the more establishment types who are narked with how Iraq has gone and with an appreciation for civilisation in our times, they are going to be most useful.

A countrys ability to defend its borders, its soverienty and the dignity of its people grows with time, Iran is better than a lot of places, we can assume its not perfect.

Despite the drip feed being served to us all. Vain human rights bitching on the outside serves one purpose and one purpose only, that of manufacturing consent.


Article printed from Pickled Politics: http://www.pickledpolitics.com

URL to article: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1388

URLs in this post:
[1] criticism: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1378
[2] like last time: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/398
[3] here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1242
[4] here: http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/07/06/hizb-ut-tahrir-not-for-banning/
[5] http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com/: http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com/
[6] http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,,2173922,00.html: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,,2173922,00.html
[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/