British teacher imprisoned for naming

[Thunnder Bunny 0]

In the end she bares responsibility for disobeying the laws of the land she chose to stay in.

And that land shall bare the punishment of reduced tourism and support from anyone opposed to her punishment.

It all evens out....and hopefully all parties involved will learn from their mistakes.

Hmmmmm.. remembers the kid who got caned ......or not!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And that land shall bare the punishment of reduced tourism

The only tourism in Sudan I can think of right now comes in with tanks, helos and infantry weapons. It´s about time those mass murderers get dealt with.

We´ve all been watching the show long enough. It´s about time the ball gets rolling and this bloodthirsty regime gets toppled. Bodycountwise they are responsible for far more deaths than Saddam has ever been, but still the value of the country itself seem to be the hindering reason number 1 to get some serious force involved there. The recent acceptance of AU-UN forces in Sudan means very little to me. Not that I´m saying that they are not motivated, but I don´t think they are the right ones for the job right now. I guess it would be best to send in western forces first to do the tricky part and then have the peacekeeping done by AU-UN units.

Just my thoughts though. From what I have experienced AU units have a problem dealing the hard way with "brothers" and that´s a problem here.

This is just meant to be a sidenote on the situation in Sudan, unrelated to the incident at hand. I stills tnad by my point. It´s her own fault. She´s been teaching kids there, so she should have been aware that there is a religion called Islam that prohibits the useage of Muhammads name in many , many ways.

That´s the basics.

Edit: Short glimpse on the obstacles Sudan prepared for a UN-AU force here

Imo there´s already been enough talking for years now and to be honest Sudan doesnt act especially smart when trying to hinder the UN-AU force with methods and regulations that are simply mad.

It shouldn´t be too hard to get this sorted the hard way if necessary.

[Jack-UK 0]

There wont be any military action from the US and UK for a long time. They simply wont have the power to do so because of the wounds Iraq has made in politics, especially in the US.

Why do you think no military action has been discussed much for Iran? For one, Bush is lame duck, and for another, they'll never get the support for another war due to mistakes made in Iraq.

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s part of the problem as western military forces are really stretched thin atm because of the engagements in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Lebanon and Iraq. Apart from that I guess public support would be low keeping in mind what reasons some staged for a war in Iraq. Why should they believe them this time.

Fucked up situation.

Iran is different piece of paper though as they are quite an opponent and the border to Iraq doesn´t make it any easier.

The US actually managed to limit themselves by starting this incredibly stupid war down there.

[martinovic 0]

Attacking Sudan would be a great way to get yourself even more hated.

Fuck off of other people's business.

[R3MF 0]

This is too funny. But on the other hand, she should have known better.

why, there is no islanmic consensus on whether it is ok or not ok to call an inanimate object mohammed.

not all consider it idolatorus (sp?)

What are you talking about? There is an absolutely clear consensus on it.

It wasn't just an inanimate object, it was a depiction of an animal which is already forbidden by Islam.

an article i read was quite clear on the matter, after interviewing various muslim groups/bodies around the world there was divided opinion on whether it was in idolatrous to name a teddy-bear Mohammed.

Some groups think yes, other no, there is no inscription saying "thou shalt not name stuffed animal icons Mohammed", so it is a matter for interpretation.

There is no consensus.

[martinovic 0]

This is too funny. But on the other hand, she should have known better.

why, there is no islanmic consensus on whether it is ok or not ok to call an inanimate object mohammed.

not all consider it idolatorus (sp?)

What are you talking about? There is an absolutely clear consensus on it.

It wasn't just an inanimate object, it was a depiction of an animal which is already forbidden by Islam.

an article i read was quite clear on the matter, after interviewing various muslim groups/bodies around the world there was divided opinion on whether it was in idolatrous to name a teddy-bear Mohammed.

Some groups think yes, other no, there is no inscription saying "thou shalt not name stuffed animal icons Mohammed", so it is a matter for interpretation.

There is no consensus.

The consensus was good enough for Sudan to actually put it into it's law that naming any depiction of an animal Mohammed was against it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Attacking Sudan would be a great way to get yourself even more hated.

Fuck off of other people's business.

So ? I guess there´s little to loose and lots to gain. Once the people will stop dying, being driven from their land, hunted by governmental attack helos or foreign camel-militia and find out that the foreign troop presence is a direct benefit for their life it´s the time when new friends are made.

Who´s business is it ? The business of a starved population or the business of ethnic cleaners ?

According to your approach europe and big chunks of the african continent plus eastern europe and more would have the swastika as their national flag and the jews would have been erradicated.

While I do agree that foreign military influence should be thought about better twice than once I guess it´s clear that once an ongoing genocide is happening and diplomacy can achieve nothing it´s about time to think about the hard way and conduct operations to stop it.

This is what the UN troops are for.

[chops 111]

Bill Clinton had no problems attacking Sudan, sent a tomahawk to blow up a vaccine factory in '98. Why can't cowboy Dubya let a few fly at those Janjeweed camel rapists

I wonder if it's OK to name a cruise missile Mohammed?

[Journeyman 0]

I wonder if it's OK to name a cruise missile Mohammed?

... So long as you're aiming it at those who don't like it!  

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]Attacking Sudan would be a great way to get yourself even more hated.

Fuck off of other people's business.

So ? I guess there´s little to loose and lots to gain. Once the people will stop dying, being driven from their land, hunted by governmental attack helos or foreign camel-militia and find out that the foreign troop presence is a direct benefit for their life it´s the time when new friends are made.

Who´s business is it ? The business of a starved population or the business of ethnic cleaners ?

According to your approach europe and big chunks of the african continent plus eastern europe and more would have the swastika as their national flag and the jews would have been erradicated.

While I do agree that foreign military influence should be thought about better twice than once I guess it´s clear that once an ongoing genocide is happening and diplomacy can achieve nothing it´s about time to think about the hard way and conduct operations to stop it.

This is what the UN troops are for.

That's bull. Don't even try to bring WW2 into this, this has nothing to do with WW2 on any level.

If you want to compare this then compare to resemblant conflicts.

Like Iraq. The big boo boo there was the kurds and their gassing... and torture. (Remember? Back when you were "above such things"?) You didn't invade Britain when Churchill did the gassing of kurds, oddly enough and now the US are employing torture happily themselves. Less iraqis died under Saddam then after the invasion. There was a working infrastructure and more regional stability. So ironically you made Iraq a worse place and lost your moral high ground that you so value. Not to mention the debt you've gotten into asa result.

Another one. The kosovo albanians deaths were grossly inflated and the massacres of serbians were hardly ever reported. Now albanians are blowing up bridges, burning down monasteries and other assorted niceties that the US or UN doesn't give two shits about. That was another case of high quality bull.

Or the poor widdle baby killing, drug trafficing chechens who wouldn't hurt a fly. Big bad Russia must be stopped!

Sad little afghans anyone?

Now you want to go in with the same excuse into Sudan?

The mystical G word seems to have this effect on westerners that they lose all rationale. It's like when a dumb brat calls the police on his parents. "He can't lie, he's a kid!"

Oh no, the darfur residents would never lie about militias now would they? Ofcourse you would never assume that about these guys, cause you think they're just silly brown people that need rescuing.

That part of the world is already batshit crazy, even in peace time. Female circumcision, man eating and the burrying of kids under buildings' foundations to give them more stability. You're not going in to rescue the Brady Bunch.

The west obviously wants a feel good story about africa. But you would just be considered colonising bastards and half of the place would go to war against you, making the sudanese goverment heroes i the process.

Quote[/b] ]Once the people will stop dying, being driven from their land, hunted by governmental attack helos or foreign camel-militia and find out that the foreign troop presence is a direct benefit for their life it´s the time when new friends are made.

"We will be greeted as liberators!"

[Placebo 29]

Apparently the main issue is that Sudan is ruled by Sheffield United fans

[Placebo 29]

And as this thread has now resorted to the same petty childish bickering that we have political threads specifically for I think we can say goodbye to teddy