# Teddybear name diplomatic incident



## Elphaba (28 Nov 2007)

Anyone incensed about teacher in Sudan who permitted her students to name
a teddybear Mohammed, part of a school project where kids kept a diary about teddybear, an innocent lesson for them in repsonsibility, and now she has been charged with blasphemey and is in jail. Where is the logic behind this, all I can see is an evil madness, that is unsettling and appearing far too frequently. I wish the foreign office in U.K. would challenge this charge at the highest level.


----------



## z103 (29 Nov 2007)

Two things struck me about this;

1. The teacher didn't name the bear, the kids did.
2. If a teacher in and Irish school, in Ireland, named a teddy bear 'This post will be deleted if not edited immediately' and asked kids to take This post will be deleted if not edited immediately home and write stories etc... One or two eyebrows may have been raised.


----------



## shanegl (29 Nov 2007)

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately isn't a popular name here though. I'd hazard a guess that one or two of those kids are named Mohammad.

While I can understand sensitivities surrounding the issue - no images or idolatory - when I see quotes like this one below I find it hard to keep the cultural relativism going:



> "What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said in a statement.


Hopefully common sense will prevail and she'll just get a small fine, the law allows this.


----------



## RonanC (29 Nov 2007)

The most popular boy in the class was actually called Mohammed... The kids voted on the best name and picked this one, maybe because of the boy in the class or maybe just because its a very common name and obviously means something to them at such a young age

Either way its using religion as a platform to punish somebody and its taken way to far in my opinion (the authorities that is and not the teacher)


----------



## diarmuidc (29 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> One or two eyebrows may have been raised.


Maybe, but she would not have been arrested, charged and potentially whipped with a lash as a result.


----------



## JP1234 (29 Nov 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> Maybe, but she would not have been arrested, charged and potentially whipped with a lash as a result.



You haven't met my Step-Father in law, who has come out with such gems as

_People should be shot for calling a child This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_

_Madonna should be whipped for blaspheming the holy mother
_

(basically any one who isn't a white catholic gets this treatment from him)


----------



## pc7 (29 Nov 2007)

I feel when you go to countries like this, this is the sort of madness imho that you can expect.  The cultures, beliefs, value systems, crime and punishment are polar opposites from our own.  It seems they are trying to make an example of her, I wonder if she was from their culture would the issue have been such a problem especially in the light of the children choosing the name.


----------



## gianni (29 Nov 2007)

While I do have sympathy with this individual I can't help thinking that she has been a little naive. 

There are certain things that you shouldn't do in certain countries...

In Germany - make jokes about the holocaust
In Ireland - name a racehorse The Virgin Mary
In USA - dress up as Bin Laden in a Texan bar

She must have known the sensitivities of the country that she had chosen to live/work in. Her punishment does seem mad to us - but I'm sure there are plenty of areas of Irish culture that seem mad to the Sudanese...


----------



## redstar (29 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> "What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said in a statement.



Yet another example of fundamentalist religious zealots in insecure, paranoid hyper-sensitivity mode.


----------



## RMCF (29 Nov 2007)

JP1234 said:


> You haven't met my Step-Father in law, who has come out with such gems as
> 
> *People should be shot for calling a child This post will be deleted if not edited immediately*
> 
> ...



From what I remember reading years ago, in a lot of Latin countries This post will be deleted if not edited immediately is a very popular boys name.


----------



## Johnny Boy (29 Nov 2007)

Sometimes it feels that western values are under threat by so called religous people. Alot of religious stuff is superstition anyways.


----------



## FredBloggs (29 Nov 2007)

Unfortunately she should have been more atuned to the sensibilities of the country she was in - perhaps warned by the school head of the religous sensibilities of the Suadanese.  
I'm not condoning their actions - completely wrong imho - but she should have been more atuned to where she was.

Having said that its a bit rich that we've to fall in line with local traditions when we travel to such countries whereas they expect us to accept their traditions when coming here.
EG Certain muslim women wear full head dress here but if western women wore shorts there they'd most likely be locked up or flogged.


----------



## Superman (29 Nov 2007)

FredBloggs said:


> Unfortunately she should have been more atuned to the sensibilities of the country she was in - perhaps warned by the school head of the religous sensibilities of the Suadanese.



I wonder what would have happened if after the children had voted to call the teddy Mohammed, she refused to allow it - would this also have been an insult?

Sudan is the country that has given the world Darfur by the way,  so focusing on this particular case which involves a single westerner seems a little rich to me. 

There are some good articles and discussions over on the Richard Dawkins website about this incident - here are some:
*link*

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]


----------



## rabbit (29 Nov 2007)

FredBloggs said:


> its a bit rich that we've to fall in line with local traditions when we travel to such countries whereas they expect us to accept their traditions when coming here.
> EG Certain muslim women wear full head dress here but if western women wore shorts there they'd most likely be locked up or flogged.


 

Well said.  With almost 1 % of the Irish population now muslim, and rising, we are following countries like England , France + Germany, which have much bigger muslim minorities.....these people are generally allowed - and rightfully so - full rights.  But I believe that even in places like most of Saudi Arabia no Christian churches are allowed to be built.


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Nov 2007)

gianni said:


> There are certain things that you shouldn't do in certain countries...
> 
> In Germany - make jokes about the holocaust
> In Ireland - name a racehorse The Virgin Mary
> ...



Like calling a high-profile Dublin City Centre Chinese restaurant after Mao, a despot responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of innocents?



Superman said:


> Sudan is the country that has given the world Darfur by the way,  so focusing on this particular case which involves a single westerner seems a little rich to me.



So if a country is responsible for a major human rights catastrophe,  you think  that they should be immune from criticism for relatively minor human rights breaches?


----------



## Elphaba (29 Nov 2007)

redstar said:


> Yet another example of fundamentalist religious zealots in insecure, paranoid hyper-sensitivity mode.



Precisely, they draw uneccessary negative attention to themselves,
and mainstream muslims. Another case in saudi where a woman is been charged with adultery after being gang raped. (Her husband is standing by her, and it is being challenged in court, the decision is being reviewed, which is very unusual, but good) Honour killings on the rise in U.K. If a daughter/wife shames her husband, his religion allows him to kill her, so he can redeem family honour. What man in their right mind, after washing his hands of it, can breathe a sigh of relief and continue life normally..it defies an explanation. What is clearly obvious is the gross injustices been suffered by women in these countries.


----------



## TreeTiger (29 Nov 2007)

I see Gillian Gibbons has been sentenced to 15 days in prison, to be followed by deportation.
Well hey, isn't she "lucky".  After all, according to Sudan's "top clerics", this was part of a Western plot against Islam.


Unreal


----------



## boaber (30 Nov 2007)

Elphaba said:


> I wish the foreign office in U.K. would challenge this charge at the highest level.



They have been and continue to do so

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7120263.stm


----------



## Johnny Boy (30 Nov 2007)

Too late the teddybear has been beheaded


----------



## pc7 (30 Nov 2007)

good God (whichever one you believe in) they are marching to have the teacher shot! http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1295080,00.html


----------



## Caveat (30 Nov 2007)

I assume many practicing Muslims here (especially if formerly resident in a repressive Islamic state)  appreciate the relative personal freedom, religious freedom that this state offers.  But I wonder what the religious leaders/clerics of their home countries have to say about that?  

It's not something I've often heard about.  I expect of course that leaders in the more fundamental states see their former 'flock' as being traitors/infidels etc but what about the slightly more moderate regimes?

How do they feel about their former parishioners living a new life (mostly) free from institutionalised misogyny, persecution, repression...?


----------



## The_Banker (30 Nov 2007)

I think the level of religious inference/influence with the government of a state/country is an indication of how developed/educated the country and population is.
It is no coincidence that religion is used as a tool to control people in one party states or countries where the population is poor. It helps the government keep the population under control and furthers the lie that all your suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next.
Thus, this keeps poor and uneducated populations from rising against governments. Often governments are aided and abetted by Amman’s (or indeed archbishops) who have special privileges and a position of some local power.
Cast your mind back to pre Celtic Tiger Ireland when Ireland was ruled from the Bishops Palace in Drumcondra. The Irish people were poor but we were happy with our faith knowing that some day we would get our eternal reward in heaven.
With the power that the Catholic Church had, they tended to wield it to look after our immortal souls. There are many examples of this… Archbishop John Charles McQuaid while President of Blackrock College and member of a sports body in Ireland (the name escapes me) railed against the participation of females in Irish sport because Irish men may have had there heads turned. He successfully campaigned against the introduction of tampons in Ireland deeming them “too pleasurable for women to use” and they were only sold in Ireland in the early 70s after he left office.
I am only 37 but I can remember in 1986 pubs in Cork being raided because they had vending machines selling condoms. And this in the year after the death of Rock Hudson and the whole AIDS media explosion. The thinking was, if Irish people had access to condoms then they would have sex but if they didn’t see condoms on a regular basis then sex would not enter there heads. 
So, not too long ago the decisions of our own Catholic Hierarchy/Government would have looked outrageous to the outside world.
Is it any coincidence that the Celtic Tiger coincided with the decline of the Catholic Church?

On a funny note:
Did anyone see the Sky News debate about 2 nights ago which I thought was funny. The interviewer had a representative of the Sudanese consulate and also someone representing ‘western world’ ideology. 
The Sudanese representative was saying that it was illegal under Sharia law to name any animal after the prophet Mohammad or any emblem of an animal after the revered prophet. The other guy was explaining that in western culture a teddy bear is more like a doll than an animal. He then went on to explain how teddy bears got there name, in that they were named after a former American President Teddy Roosevelt. Upon hearing that the Sudanese guy lost it saying that her blasphemy was even more outrageous because she named a symbol of the American presidency after the revered prophet. Hilarious!


----------



## Phibbleberry (30 Nov 2007)

It bordering on the ridiculous now - there are thousands of people in Karthoom marching, calling for her execution?!?!


----------



## z104 (30 Nov 2007)

Do they not have a sence of Humour.
Anyway, I'm off to buy my very own Mohamed bear on ebay.

I think they're also doing This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Bear and Johovah bear.
They'd make an ideal Christmas pressent.


----------



## pc7 (30 Nov 2007)

what about an atheist bear?


----------



## redstar (30 Nov 2007)

pc7 said:


> what about an atheist bear?



Who could be called 'richard'


----------



## Superman (30 Nov 2007)

Caveat said:


> I assume many practicing Muslims here (especially if formerly resident in a repressive Islamic state)  appreciate the relative personal freedom, religious freedom that this state offers.  But I wonder what the religious leaders/clerics of their home countries have to say about that?...
> How do they feel about their former parishioners living a new life (mostly) free from institutionalised misogyny, persecution, repression...?


Well they are supposed to be here to spread Sharia (e.g. see [broken link removed] with Dr. Bari of the MCB where he recommends the introduction of stoning as a punishment in the British legal system), so religious leaders are fairly happy if the percentage of Muslims in a non-Muslim country is rising (that's assuming they don't integrate/westernise of course).  What really ****es them off are organisations such as the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who use the safety of Europe to try to reform Islam.  http://ex-muslim.org.uk/


----------



## Superman (30 Nov 2007)

Niallers said:


> Do they not have a sence of Humour.
> Anyway, I'm off to buy my very own Mohamed bear on ebay.



Yeah - that was rather [broken link removed]


----------



## Superman (30 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> So if a country is responsible for a major human rights catastrophe,  you think  that they should be immune from criticism for relatively minor human rights breaches?


I'm not entirely certain that what they did in this case was a breach of human rights.  Her punishment was not inhumane (15 days imprisonment), and her crime was something that is technically punishable in Ireland also (I assume you feel Ireland has a reasonable human rights record).

So in this instance I do feel that Darfur deserves more attention than this woman.


----------



## Elphaba (1 Dec 2007)

The_Banker said:


> Thus, this keeps poor and uneducated populations from rising against governments. Often governments are aided and abetted by Amman’s (or indeed archbishops) who have special privileges and a position of some local power.



I can understand where you're coming from Banker, but its an uneasy comparison. While catholic women were repressed they were not stoned to death. Maybe shamed to death, but their punishment was not murder.
Not sure that poverty, poor education is a reason either, just look at Saudi Arabia.


----------



## stir crazy (1 Dec 2007)

Elphaba said:


> I can understand where you're coming from Banker, but its an uneasy comparison. While catholic women were repressed they were not stoned to death. Maybe shamed to death, but their punishment was not murder.



Well what I ve heard of the magdalen laundries sounds a lot worse than the 15 days the lady in question will have to endure. Then of course there is the awful treatment of children by our religious orders ... its possible to think that stoning is easier than what the poor kids had to endure.




small aside note:

I dont want to put two religions head to head against each other or use one as an excuse to promote the second as IMO its all superstitious nonsense. If anything the traditional religion on this island is the lesser of 2 evils IMO. I think people worry whether the elimination of our traditional religion would leave a vacuum into which something alien to our values and anti-democratic could grow. But is this a reason to be religious ? Maybe its ala carte westernism.


----------



## Superman (2 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> Well what I ve heard of the magdalen laundries sounds a lot worse than the 15 days the lady in question will have to endure. Then of course there is the awful treatment of children by our religious orders ... its possible to think that stoning is easier than what the poor kids had to endure.


Aah - a little bit of perspective here would be nice.  

Noone in Ireland or Europe is advocating the reintroduction of Magdalen Laundries,  people are advocating the introduction of stoning though. 

 Secondly, perhaps you should ask those kids and those people stoned to death if they would prefer to be stoned to death or in a laundry.  

Thirdly the treatment of the children was by neglect rather than intent - unlike with stoning.  

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JysVcL3YkM0/RppYktFS_rI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/3dLiNazc-c4/s1600-h/Stoning.jpghttp://bp0.blogger.com/_JysVcL3YkM0/RppYktFS_rI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/3dLiNazc-c4/s1600-h/Stoning.jpg


----------



## stir crazy (2 Dec 2007)

Superman said:


> Aah - a little bit of perspective here would be nice.



Perspective is easy but as an excuse or an apology it doesnt work. Sudan s in the grip of a theocracy just like our country was. Both of which are wrong IMO. Burning witches to death in the middle ages in Europe roughly equates or even exceeds the pain and barbarism of a stoning. Similarly with  gays being hanged on fishamble street at christchurch in the 1600's



Superman said:


> Thirdly the treatment of the children was by neglect rather than intent - unlike with stoning.



Christendom burning 'witches' alive sounds like intent to me. As does the covering up by the Catholic church of abusers. If it was any other company the CEO would be fully responsible and be jailed. 
How convenient is your concept of 'neglect rather than intent.' That way noone can be held responsible 




Superman said:


> Noone in Ireland or Europe is advocating the reintroduction of Magdalen Laundries,  people are advocating the introduction of stoning though.



Only a miniscule negligible percentage of people who are so out of touch with the rest of us  would trust any religion to wield such political power in this country ever again.  The evil forces behind stoning and magdalen laundries are ultimately 2 sides of  the same coin in my opinion.




Superman said:


> Secondly, perhaps you should ask those kids and those people stoned to death if they would prefer to be stoned to death or in a laundry.



As far as I am aware the laundries were for the mothers of the kids.

However , if following the idea you suggest, giving a kid a choice between certain buggery and torture while interned in one of the so called christian religious camps  and being stoned to death. Talk about a hobsons/sophies choice.


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Dec 2007)

Superman said:


> I'm not entirely certain that what they did in this case was a breach of human rights.  Her punishment was not inhumane (15 days imprisonment), and her crime was something that is technically punishable in Ireland also (I assume you feel Ireland has a reasonable human rights record).



Well in that case you seem to have a very warped sense of human rights. 

Would you support the jailing of a teacher in Ireland who inadvertently offended the Catholic Church for example? 

Would you have supported the right of Mayo County Council in 1930 to refuse to sanction the appointment of Miss Letitia Dunbar-Harrison as county librarian on the grounds that she was a Protestant? 

Would you have supported her imprisonment at the time had "offended" Catholics demanded this?

[broken link removed]



> December 31st 1930: Mayo County Council is dissolved by ministerial order for refusing to appoint Miss Letitia Dunbar-Harrison to the position of county librarian on the grounds that she is a Protestant.  "The Appointments Commissioners abolished at one stroke an Augean stable of intrigue and jobbery," says The Irish Times.


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Dec 2007)

Now call me crazy but nobody forced that woman (Gillian) to go to Sudan an work there. When she went down there, she did know that it is an unstable country with a large hard-line Muslim population and sects that are trying to get into power.

When her class decided to name to the teddy Muhammad she as an educated person should have realized that this will cause with the local very verbal sects. She should not have allowed that to happen and maybe consulted with her head teacher what to do.

Everybody is very critical of her getting 15 days in jail because of this but where is the person that actually says that she is partly responsible for this?

I’m sorry people but in Sudan they interpret the holy Qur'an in a certain way, if you don’t like the way they do that, than don’t go there! But if you go than deploy common sense and be aware of what is going on around you.

Now I don’t say that the interpretation of the holy Qur'an that is done in Sudan is correct from my point of view but if I go there I have to accept the law of the land. 

Sure it’s wrong to stone people be it according to the holy books of either Qur'an, Bible or the Tanakh or anything else. 

But if I go to a country I have to respect the local law, even if it is a religious law that is contrary to my own religious believes. 

I regularly go to the Muslim world and I always have been treated with respect and treated them with respect. I behave according to local customs where ever I am, if you show respect to other people they show respect to you.

They might have strange laws but I’m sure some of our religious laws must strike someone from down there with the same strangeness.

It’s over now, she is back in England and now she is going to run the talk show circle and maybe write a book or something...


----------



## room305 (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> When her class decided to name to the teddy Muhammad she as an educated person should have realized that this will cause with the local very verbal sects. She should not have allowed that to happen and maybe consulted with her head teacher what to do.




Hindsight provides such clarity to a sequence of events. I am sure she would have handled the situation differently if she were given the opportunity to relive it.

Ask yourself this:

- Would we have seen the same response if she was a male Sudanese Muslim teacher and the same incident occured?
- Isn't it entirely possible that equal offence would have been taken if she allowed the children to name the teddy bear, the children chose Mohammed and she told them to pick a different name?
 


DublinTexas said:


> I regularly go to the Muslim world and I always have been treated with respect and treated them with respect. I behave according to local customs where ever I am, if you show respect to other people they show respect to you.



Are you male or female? I regularly meet people of many different nations and creeds in my line of work and manage to avoid offending most of them, but this is a very different experience to conforming to the laws of a certain country while you live there. Especially when these laws appear arbitrary and completely unreasonable.

If you were visiting Tehran and invoked some gesture or phrase that led to the authorities to suspect you were a homosexual, facing execution as a  consequence, would you blame yourself for not being aware of the local "custom"?


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Dec 2007)

room305 said:


> Hindsight provides such clarity to a sequence of events. I am sure she would have handled the situation differently if she were given the opportunity to relive it.
> 
> Ask yourself this:
> 
> ...


 
_I would never go to Persia until the current terrorist goverment is gone. That has nothing to do with my religion or sexuality. It's common sense. In fact I think we should bomb that little country back to the stone ages. And that has nothing to do with religon but rather with terrorist activity and the fact that we can't let that little Hitler have an atomic weapon because he will wipe Israel from the map._ 

In any case, I do understand what you mean with the example, but still even when these laws appear arbitrary and completely unreasonable it's the law. When you decide to live/visit there you have to accept the local law.

Anybody coming to this country needs to accept the local law how ever unresonable that law might be in his/her view. Sure we don't stone people or brun them (anymore) but still if you break irish law you get your punishment and than as a "non national" you might get thrown out of the country.

And that is what happend down there. She broke the law (even if we think it's unresonable), she got a punishment that was adapted to the fact that she is english (she got jail instead of lashes) and than she got thrown out of the country.

The only reason is this "breaking news" is the fact that she is english. If the teacher would have been local s/he would have gotten her sentense (lashes) and that's that. That would not even have made the news these days. 

When is the last time people got up in arms about a woman being stoned in Saudia arabia because she had sex outside marriage? Where are the protestor than? If it would have been a "western" woman than everybody would have been up in arms.

People don't care until it hits one of their race/religion/country/hemisphere or oil is involved.


----------



## stir crazy (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> Now call me crazy but nobody forced that woman (Gillian) to go to Sudan an work there.



  As a woman,I think she was nuts to go*there   *and support a country which fundamentally opposes everything*(I'm*assuming) she believes in.

  However its difficult to know the full story from the news channels at home. I'd like to know how many people,*and*how*educated*they were at these rallys I heard about which called for her head ? And who organised these protests ? Was it* extremist Al Quaida figures in the background  who would exploit even the most miniscule of issues for headlines ?

  .wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }


----------



## room305 (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> In any case, I do understand what you mean with the example, but still even when these laws appear arbitrary and completely unreasonable it's the law. When you decide to live/visit there you have to accept the local law.



I would argue that _even_ with good knowledge of Sudanese law, it would have been very easy to trip up. Precisely because religious blasphemy laws are very subjective. She might have felt that not allowing the children to name the teddy bear Mohammed was blasphemous. Why is it blasphemous to call the teddy Mohammed but not to call your child so? I'd wager that many a Sudanese teacher could have fallen victim to this law but I'll bet the punishment wouldn't have been so severe (if indeed there was any).



DublinTexas said:


> Anybody coming to this country needs to accept the local law how ever unresonable that law might be in his/her view. Sure we don't stone people or brun them (anymore) but still if you break irish law you get your punishment and than as a "non national" you might get thrown out of the country.



Should we arrest people from polygamous societies for bigamy then?


----------



## diarmuidc (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> _I would never go to Persia until the current terrorist goverment is gone. That has nothing to do with my religion or sexuality. It's common sense. In fact I think we should bomb that little country back to the stone ages. And that has nothing to do with religon but rather with terrorist activity and the fact that we can't let that little Hitler have an atomic weapon because he will wipe Israel from the map._


Do you want to change your tune or are you still gung ho for bombing them back to the stone ages, just in case?


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Dec 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> Do you want to change your tune or are you still gung ho for bombing them back to the stone ages, just in case?


 
Well after reading the NIE which only has came to my attention after you pointed it out (thanks for that), I think we can continue with "sanctions" until the NIE shows that they are near to get enough material. Than let's bomb them to stone ages. That is if the "sanctions" don't show further results by them completly stopping with their goal.

Under no circumstances can that re-incarination of Hitler be allowed to have controll over atomic weapons.

But as long as these "sanctions" and political efforts stop him from whiping Israel off the map I'm all for peacefull solutions. But if he is near to getting the weapons for his goal, than I'm going back to military solutions.


----------



## The_Banker (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> _I would never go to Persia until the current terrorist goverment is gone. That has nothing to do with my religion or sexuality. It's common sense. In fact I think we should bomb that little country back to the stone ages. And that has nothing to do with religon but rather with terrorist activity and the fact that we can't let that little Hitler have an atomic weapon because he will wipe Israel from the map._


 
Well thankfully your not in charge of foreign policy in the USA. Do you not think nuking Iran (or Persia as you prefer to call it) back to the stone age would not have an affect on Isreal if the wind was blowing east to west?
Or on the American soldiers serving in Iraq? Or the people of eastern Europe? Or the people here in Ireland? Or on world ecomonic conditions?

I was giving your argument a little though until you came up with the gem above.

Do you not think what the Sudanese government deserve to be nuked into the stone age for what they are doing in Darfur? Or are you only interested in terrorism that directly affects the United States?


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Dec 2007)

The_Banker said:


> Well thankfully your not in charge of foreign policy in the USA. Do you not think nuking Iran (or Persia as you prefer to call it) back to the stone age would not have an affect on Isreal if the wind was blowing east to west?
> Or on the American soldiers serving in Iraq? Or the people of eastern Europe? Or the people here in Ireland? Or on world ecomonic conditions?
> 
> I was giving your argument a little though until you came up with the gem above.
> ...


 
Where did I ask for "nuking" somebody. The destruction of equipement in Iran that could be used to create weapons of mass destruction by military means (what I called bomb them back to the stone ages) is in my opinon a viable solution, which however in light of the NIE as above does not seam right at the moment.

Now you drag in Dafur and that is hot topic for me!

In respect of Dafur, I gave money to charities dealing with Dafur way before everybody else every made a fuss. I made a politcal fuss about by writing to my goverment more than once to get the finger out of their collective asses and do something. I think not enough is done done their and the current AU or UN troups are a joke. So is the EU force which may or may not be deployed to protect refugee camps.

Dermot Ahern's performance about this in yesterdays Q&A on RTE was a shame. So is what other politican worldwide (including the US) are doing (or rather not doing).

Stop delaying the deployment because of political face saving. Either you want to help or not. If you want to help, get the troops and helicopters down there. Hell for sure the soldiers are gonna get shot at but either we want to protect the refugess or not. 

If we want than stop waisting time and act now before more people die. 

Now the talk about deploying it in January, despite the rebels moving now. Just because they move 1 month earlier than last year we can't keep our head in the sand. What are "rapid deployment forces" for if we can't get them up in over 5 month now?

And finaly I am against terrorism from where ever it comes. From the right, left, protestants, catholics, muslims, jewish or greenpeace or anthing else.


----------



## stir crazy (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> _*In fact I think we should bomb that little country back to the stone ages._


     ...which would be in my opinion just another wrong done since the overthrowing of democracy in Iran during the 1950's followed by the  support of the evil shah by the west.
     You cant talk about understanding different cultures and their punishments without understanding why they became the way they are today.




DublinTexas said:


> When is the last time people got up in arms about a woman being stoned in Saudia arabia because she had sex outside marriage? Where are the protestor than? If it would have been a "western" woman than everybody would have been up in arms.




     I completely agree here and think its total crap that we dont say more about this to the heads of the countries concerned. In this case it appears oil and the need for cordial diplomatic relations is the major factor.
     When the oils  runs out; then there will be a big change. Nobody will probably care what happens in the middle east then. And*western governments will probably find the courage to mention such things as human rights if the occasion arises.
     I remember maybe 2 years ago there was a photo of  a meeting of our government ministers and saudi officials and our female minister had to sit away from the saudi heads of government on the other side of the room while  'the boys' all sat together with them. All to please their chauvinism. That really says it all.


----------



## The_Banker (4 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> Where did I ask for "nuking" somebody.


 
Apologies. You didn't. I misread your last post.

But I still don't think bombing Iran back to the stone age will help anyone.


----------



## delgirl (5 Dec 2007)

room305 said:


> I would argue that _even_ with good knowledge of Sudanese law, it would have been very easy to trip up. Precisely because religious blasphemy laws are very subjective.


Room305 is quite right here - I lived in the Middle East for 5 years and almost came a cropper when out jogging on the seafront in a Gulf State.

We had been told that we must cover our arms and legs, no need to cover the hair and so long as we did that, we would be okay.

Went jogging with a long (to the mid thigh) long-sleeved t-shirt and black full length leggings and socks and trainers and nearly got lynched!  

A Mullah out for a stroll took offence to my leggings and quickly gathered a crowd around him to yell and scream at me.  I was very lucky that a Lebanese man who could see what was happening came to my rescue and explained in English what was going on.  He managed after much heated argument and the police having been summoned to persuade them that I had understood that I was to be covered from neck to ankle and that I had not realised that some people might find the leggings offensive.  We hadn't been told that the clothing must be loose so as not to define the shape of any part of the body.

I was very lucky to get away from the group that had gathered as it appeared that they all believed they had to agree with the Mullah!

It's disappointing that Western countries are expected to be tolerant and accept the traditions of other cultures (to the extent where we deny our own traditions and cultures such as the cancelling of a Nativity Play in a Dublin Creche this week because of a few complaints from non-Christian parents or the removal of a crib from a public hospital last year for fear of causing offence) when they come to live in our societies, but believe me, our tolerance is certainly not reciprocated in Islamic countries.


----------



## ninsaga (5 Dec 2007)

I had a stand at the local car boot sale last weekend.... I had bought this teddy for €5..... I then sold it at the car boot sale for €10!   .. Now the friggin' Sudanese Muslims are after me for making a prophet out of a teddy bear!!!!


----------



## delgirl (5 Dec 2007)

ninsaga said:


> I had a stand at the local car boot sale last weekend.... I had bought this teddy for €5..... I then sold it at the car boot sale for €10! .. Now the friggin' Sudanese Muslims are after me for making a prophet out of a teddy bear!!!!


   Very good Ninsaga!

This guy was lucky he didn't call his doll Mohammed...


----------



## RainyDay (5 Dec 2007)

Seems like a case of life imitating art.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2007)

She was a stupid women to do what she did but Fundamentalist Islamic law is evil and has no place in a free country. 
I don't think that nativity plays should be stopped. I do think that covering your entire face in public should be banned. I don’t think we should pussey-foot around these issues. 
If you don't ant to live in a secular western democracy with a strong Christian tradition then don't move to Ireland. 
If you want to live in a country that has Sharia law then don't move to Ireland. 
If you are from Ireland and you want Sharia law then move to some repressive misogynistic s*** hole where they have it. 
This is Europe; we had our religious wars. Then we had an age of reason and an age of Enlightenment. Religious fundamentalism, or any other form of totalitarianism or fascism has no place in a civilised country. Any culture that accepts any of the above forms of law or government are inferior to ours and we should not be afraid to say so.


----------



## Caveat (6 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> She was a stupid women to do what she did but Fundamentalist Islamic law is evil and has no place in a free country.
> I don't think that nativity plays should be stopped. I do think that covering your entire face in public should be banned. I don’t think we should pussey-foot around these issues.
> If you don't ant to live in a secular western democracy with a strong Christian tradition then don't move to Ireland.
> If you want to live in a country that has Sharia law then don't move to Ireland.
> ...


 
Fully agree - BTW I think your 'word mincer' must have seized up by now from lack of use.


----------



## stir crazy (6 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> She was a stupid women to do what she did but Fundamentalist Islamic law is evil and has no place in a free country.
> I don't think that nativity plays should be stopped. I do think that covering your entire face in public should be banned. I don’t think we should pussey-foot around these issues.
> If you don't ant to live in a secular western democracy with a strong Christian tradition then don't move to Ireland.
> If you want to live in a country that has Sharia law then don't move to Ireland.
> ...




 I agree 100% with every word.


----------



## diarmuidc (6 Dec 2007)

DublinTexas said:


> Than let's bomb them to stone ages.


 Please God, no one ever give you anything into your hand more dangerous than a fork and knife.


----------



## jasconius (6 Dec 2007)

Sad to see Sooty has cancelled his tour of Libya!


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2007)

Caveat said:


> Fully agree - BTW I think your 'word mincer' must have seized up by now from lack of use.


Say it like it is. Our society is superior, in every way, to those that repress half their population because of their gender and institute barbaric laws in based on the 1500 year old ramblings of a nomadic warlord.
A society based on fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism would be just as inferior.


----------



## stir crazy (11 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> This is Europe; we had our religious wars. Then we had an age of reason and an age of Enlightenment. .



I still agree with your whole post. However upon reflection, because the west's religious wars were'nt solely our own and were exported and that this has occurred fairly recently and continues to occur; I'm therefore not sure how enlightened we are.   I do think however that we are more enlightened and reasonable than any fundamentalist theocracy can be.


----------



## Welfarite (12 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> A society based on fundamentalist Christianity ... would be just as inferior.


 

I agree .....just look at George Bush !


----------



## redstar (12 Dec 2007)

... and if US fundamentalist Christianity gets a hold and spreads I fear we may be entering an age of un-Reason and un-Enlightenment.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> She was a stupid women to do what she did but Fundamentalist Islamic law is evil and has no place in a free country.
> I don't think that nativity plays should be stopped. I do think that covering your entire face in public should be banned. I don’t think we should pussey-foot around these issues.
> If you don't ant to live in a secular western democracy with a strong Christian tradition then don't move to Ireland.
> If you want to live in a country that has Sharia law then don't move to Ireland.
> ...


Must agree with the above.  She was foolish to go to a nutbar country.


----------



## RMCF (12 Dec 2007)

And the madness continues ......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/12/wfootball112.xml

Will it ever end?


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2007)

Welfarite said:


> I agree .....just look at George Bush !


I know your comment was a  and I'm no fan of GW but there is no comparison between American Protestant/Baptist fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism. Such comparisons are political, childish and ignore reality.


----------



## michaelm (13 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> . . there is no comparison between American Protestant/Baptist fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism.


The above comment makes sense to me but does it not contradict the comment below?





Purple said:


> A society based on fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism would be just as inferior.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2007)

michaelm said:


> The above comment makes sense to me but does it not contradict the comment below?


But Christian and Jewish fundamentalists don't set the rules in any country they live in.


----------

