i wouldn't always believe what " boobie boy " tells you, as coming from his self declared position of " on ignore " presumably does not even know what i post, but on an open forum i guess he is free to voice his opinion however ignorant! so i gather that you agree with Glids apraisel of the Iraq war but that you approve of it because of your previously stated stance on our energy needs, to me that sort of imperialisim is not acceptable.... so, being a discerning dinner i will be careful of what i digest.
Here is a great spoof letter that all those of a gullible nature who rush to bite the hand that feeds them (you choose to continue to live in a place you despise, why?) would do well to read. It's dripping with sarcasm and a bit close to the bone though. I hope no one in the Canadian government feels moved to decapitate anyone because people with different views to their own offend them. On the energy issue, you'd be the first to complain if the lights went out in Taunton and there were no petrol at the pumps, so please don't be a hypocrite as well as an easily-led armchair revolutionary. Also, when calling others ignorant, its best to run a spellchecker over your posts so that misspellings such as 'apraisel' do not dilute your message. It just looks silly. After all if you don't know how to spell appraisal and can't even be bothered to use a spellchecker, why should I trust anything you say to be correct? Not sure what a discerning dinner is either... An evening meal that decides who it wants to be eaten by? I will overlook your inability to use the caps, comma, hypen and apostrophe keys, however, as that may have been done in haste and not out of the sort of ignorance of which you complain and, if so, adds nothing to my argument. Here's the letter: ============================== The Canadians know how to handle complaints. Here is an example. A Canadian female wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities and demanded a response. She received the following reply: National Defense Headquarters M Gen George R. Pearkes Bldg., 15 NT 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa , ON K1A 0K2 , Canada Dear Concerned Citizen, Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces, who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa . You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defense, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A.R.K. for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided, on a trial basis, to divert several terrorists and place them in homes of concerned citizens such as yourself, around the country, under those citizens personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is your detainee, and is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. You will be pleased to know that we will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with your recommendations. Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help him overcome those character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counselling and home schooling, however, we strongly recommend that you hire some assistant caretakers. Please advise any Jewish friends, neighbours or relatives about your house guest, as he might get agitated or even violent, but we are sure you can reason with him. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless in your opinion, this might offend him. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills either in your home or wherever you choose to take him while helping him adjust to life in our country. Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters except sexually, since he views females as a form of property, thereby having no rights, including refusal of his sexual demands. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him. You also should know that he has shown violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter. You take good care of Ahmed and remember that we will try to have a counsellor available to help you over any difficulties you encounter while Ahmed is adjusting to Canadian culture. Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. Good luck and God bless you. Cordially, Gordon O'Connor Minister of National Defense
I understand what you are saying here but why, do you think, was a small-time French magazine, which you and I had never heard of before now, in the news recently? Is it because they had suddenly started doing things differently? Or is it because some demented idea of "punishing blasphemers" had backfired disastrously, spreading the blasphemous message far and wide (and even into a well-known Ducati Forum). I have no desire to place myself in David Copeland shoes nor do I desire to plant bombs and blow other people out of their shoes. There is a difference between rounding people up and forcing them to look at distressing images (I'd call that bullying) and circulating images which people are entirely at liberty to ignore and which they have to go to some effort in order to view them (which I don't consider bullying). Do you understand? I can't justify to myself a ban of certain religious-based images without agreeing that there is no freedom of speech. Pictures of the Mohammed guy are not inherently distasteful and no one can take offence who isn't already looking for excuses to do so. My opinion which I am entitled to hold (even if I am not entitled to share it).
I have not idea what 749er was getting at in this post: I think it always helps to put yourself in the other persons shoes and try and see it from their viewpoint. You don't have to go too far back to find the name David Copeland, whose intolerance of gay people and immigrants led him to bomb and kill people in London in 1999. Anyone have any idea? Whose shoes am I meant to be putting myself in? Is he agreeing that Copeland had a genuine beef, like the Charlie Hebdo murderers, because gays brought it on themselves by being provocative?
Thanks. Bit of a lame truism... but I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from his post below: "I have no idea Loz, but I do know that when I watch the news and see images of Palestinians, many have Mobile phones. Doesn't take much for an image to get around. Having said that I doubt any Moslems there would feel bullied or intimidated, they would feel angry. Those in France are a different matter. I think it always helps to put yourself in the other persons shoes and try and see it from their viewpoint. You don't have to go too far back to find the name David Copeland, whose intolerance of gay people and immigrants led him to bomb and kill people in London in 1999." Anyway I am more interested by the Palestinians he mentioned who circulated the images via their mobile phones. Surely they were as guilty of publishing offensive images and bullying their fellow devotees as the cartoonists. In English law (and Scottish as far as I know) if one repeats a libel one is as guilty as the original perpetrator - or maybe we are just more rigorous in such matters.
it's a Scottish thing, :smile: still not heard one person condone the murders, still not heard one solution.
yip. what else can you do? until it becomes law to ban there religion, not much else i can do. because the consensus says there aint no such thing as a muslim with western values.
Form your own consensus Somerset man. Tell us how Muslim beliefs can be reconciled with Western values. Good luck.
I see what you mean! Poorly laid out on my part. as Finm says, you get lunatics if all persuasions. But they are not isolated. There will be a spectrum of Moslems, some not bothered, some offended, some outraged to the point it affects how they deal with non Moslems and nutters who want to take up arms. I think it is naive to assume we can say and publish what we want without their being a reaction like that. I understand the validity of the argument which says, if people want to come live here they should fit in, but that won't stop the murders. Countries like Saudi and Iran are not that different from these islands 800 years ago when we used to carry out similar barbaric acts in public. It will take time for these cultures to mature as ours has. As an example, It was only 30 years ago Barry Norman was saying "what's the world coming to when you can't call a nigger a spade" on the BBC. It was unacceptable then as it is today but it still happened. But back to Hebdo and it's ridiculing of Mohammed. If you managed a team of people and every now and then one of the screwed up big time and people got killed or big financial losses accrued would you A) ridicule them (Hebdo cartoons) B) fire them (engage them in war by invading afghan) c) send them on a course to improve their knowledge and understanding All am saying is we should acknowledge there is much about the culture In many Moslem countries which is medieval and that we are more likely to succeed in them becoming more civilised by engaging in dialogue. It doesn't help thy the US has the death penalty and continually wants to fight with people. Under no circumstances to I sympathise with the idiots in Paris. One last point about a free press and images. I don't agree with page 3. People can say don't buy it, in the same way Moslems don't have to by Hebdo. It doesn't stop people being exposed to it on the bus, blowing about the street or wherever. If people want to see pair of boobs, they can grow a pair of balls and buy a porno mag, and leave kids out of the objectification of women. It's just wrong,
The point when freedom of speech becomes intimidating is the point where it involves threats of violence. That's why threatening is illegal as well as immoral. Charlie Hebdo, of course, never threatened any violence to anyone. Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disrespectful if it means anything. Ridicule is universal. Politicians, royalty, bishops, billionaires - they are all open to ridicule all the time. If you are saying that should be the limit of free speech, then you favour gagging us all.
I agree Pete. It would be self censorship and not what I would want in an ideal world. We have a big problem in a clash of cultures hundreds of years apart in evolution. The question is how do we bridge the gap? There is no easy answer. I don't pretend to have the answer. I am only suggesting a less than ideal, pragmatic, accommodating, Tolerant approach which hopefully would be reciprocated. Perhaps, I am being optimistic with the latter and I would accept that appraisal. The option seems to be a cycle of offence and murder.
But surely Charlie Hebdo had some idea that using cartoons to amuse whoever with pictures of Mohammed at some point could enrage the extremists of the religion. Charlie Hebdo had already caused controversy in 2006. In 2011 the office was fire bombed and in 2012 police had to surround the office to protect it from protestors/attacks Just to my mind as an on looker Charlie Hebdo seemed intent on ridiculing Islam. So much so that at some point a revenge attack was on the cards Surely freedom of speech put many people in danger and innocent ones at that Charlie Hebdo were courting danger and they paid the price with their own lives
