Charlie Hebdo: are our leaders taking us for fools?

I am inclined to think that Eric Pickles is ridiculous but wouldn't have called Charlie Hebdo sublime.

I do think it is somewhat pompous to suggest that those imams and community leaders who are already unsupportive of and opposed to acts of terrorism in the name of Islam need to be told how to behave by the Fat Controller.

absent

One of the signatories is a 'fat controller', very mature point to make. What term can you come up with for the other?

Good point, POGS. The media (and absent) seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that there is another signatory...

How clever of you soontobe to raise the question of the Bible I am unable to change the bible at 18.40, a full 11 minutes before Tresco asked a question at 18.51! Prescient or what?

The letter couldn't have been more mealy-mouthed and buttering-up inoffensive if it had been written by one of us! Just surprised they didn't follow it up with a a and a -

I think I would have been much more to-the-point.

Soutra is that some kind of code you've written there?

I am not able to change the bible either; is that a secret code?
Or another conspiracy by Dan Brown and Leonardo da Vinci?

In the meantime

POGS I was ignorant rather than ignoring. I heard David Cameron's comments and was unaware of another signatory besides the Fat Controller.

Sorry jingl I was responding to soon's post of 19.13 yesterday in which she gave Tresco's "question" as a reason for bringing the Bible yet again into the discussion.

I agree with this letter being sent out by Eric Pickles and David Cameron's comments.

Having had another look, my I am unable to change the bible post was in response to Ariadne's quote by Vasudev.

I will now try to get back to the original op. As I have tried to at least twice on this thread already.

I have decided that if anyone else asks me questions about christianity on any thread I will answer them on that thread. As many posters are reluctant to pop across to the thread on the religious topic.

Ah, sorry, I was misled by your response, claiming to be replying to Tresco. A brilliant quote and very appropriate to religious dogma and fundamentalist beliefs (of whatever religion) which are inflexible and narrow minded. But I think it referred to belief and not the written word of the Bible ?
Anyway, mustn't digress, this is not what this thread is about, is it?

Yes, I didnt look back far enough myself.

Strange how it started with Charlie and soon went into Christianity.
We should be talking about freedom of information, about refusing to be dictated by other systems (political or religious) but our own. And I believe religions should be personal and not used for political gains (as it was in Northern Ireland for ex.) We need to understand that the problem is not so much internal but international. Terribly worrying and difficult.

Absent

Your post 03.22

Well you won't be/are not the only one to dismiss the fact there were 2 signatories, after all there was no mention of it in the first post that raised the issue of the letter.

The other signatory, as I am sure you now know, was Lord Ahmed, who is a Muslim. Hence I don't understand why it is being portrayed as it is, by some. I certainly see s--t stirring though.

The David Cameron comment and why it was caught on film came about because he was doing a speech on the economy and jobs and it was being coverred by the news channels, live on TV. One questioner asked about 'the letter' and I thought David Cameron gave a perfectly good answer, especially as it was 'on the hoof'.

Sadly and like most things it is being used by some for political gain but I personally think it could be them who it so-called backfires on, not Lord Ahmed or Eric Pickles, he who some prefer to call 'The Fat Controller'.

I have to say when I see that sort of personal term applied I immediately think it sums up what a poster's motive or thinking is and I find it very difficult to take the poster or what they have to say seriously.

I have to say when I see that sort of personal term applied I immediately think it sums up what a poster's motive or thinking is

I think that they have been watching too much children's telly.

Private Eye seems to have got it about right. Their front page has a photo of the front phalanx of world leaders at the march in Paris with a collective speech bubble above it which says: "Je suis charlatan."

Their coverage in the magazine of the the shootings is clever, witty, to the point, but does not at any time insult the generality of muslims - the terrorists are their target. They have two spreads of cartoons, one old cartoons of theirs that cover the topic, and a spread of new ones.

Some examples:

- An Islamic leader dressed in robes confronts two terrorists and says "You're not going to like this lads.....I have decided we're going back to the old Islamic values of tolerance, art and science, leading the field in medicine and agriculture.

- a terrorist pats a little boy in the head as he hands him a grenade and says "If only I could go to paradise with you, but alas I'm needed here on earth."

- two children sitting writing in class, one with their hand up saying "Do I still have the right NOT to offend miss?"

That's the way to do it.

I do so agree mishap. I nearly posted about P I myself.

It's a brilliant publication. Never vicious, often very funny, doesn't toe the party line, picks on the powerful not the powerless and hits the
nail right on the head.

Yes to the above points Mishap and Petallus I subscribe to Private Eye and apart from the fantastic investigative journalism which reveals some rather scary things, they use irony in its correct form, used to mock to great effect. The cartoon are aimed at the terrorists and would not offend anyone who is not the subject of them.

The front covers alone are worth the price, boy do they prick a lot of pompous balloons.

POGS Calling Eric Pickles the Fat Controller may well be juvenile but here is not the place to discuss the contradiction of his manifest self-indulgences and his comments about others who are far less fortunate nor his conviction that his plans should immediately be enacted in law. It wasn't just a random jibe.

soontobe if you didn't keep making fairly irrelevant comments from the Bible at whatever point you fancy in a serious discussion, then people wouldn't have to ask you what you mean. And even so, you don't answer the questions in any meaningful or intelligible way. To talk about your religion you need to know about it, not just believe it.

I think it is like learning how to drive a car. Car mechanics and driving a car are different. They have a car in common, but not a lot else.
It is not at all necessary to know a whole heap about the mechanics. And if you dont know enough at some point, someone else can come in to help by filling in the gaps.

As to a discussion. The rules on this site are extremely loose in that regard.
It is subjective as to who thinks other peoples' points are "fairly irrelevant".

If you dont know everything about driving a car, that is not necessary either.

I think this site is allowed to be open to everyone?
Even those who dont knwo much about anything and everything?
It isnt elitist or exclusive is it?

Oh! Of course it isn't elitist or exclusive - the tremendous value of GN is our diversity; we all learn a lot from one another in many, many ways. But I do struggle to understand what you are trying to say sometimes, soontobe, and its relevance.

Of course you don't need to know everything, and I accept your analogy, but you do offer to answer questions.

Thank you for explaining.