pALEPHx wrote:

"'We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.'" Read mah lipz: No moar neegrow puppeez.

Should have read:

"This is Britain, where we love cute puppies in training to become fierce working dogs ready to eat terrorist wogs at the drop of a bowler.  If anyone didn't like him, they should move the fuck home and get a bloody menial job there to support three veiled wives and a legion of unschooled screaming brats."

'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'

Jesus Fucking H. Christ on a Stick.

Stories like this make me wonder how many people are actually upset about this.  I understand the idea that dogs are unclean, they do lick their own assholes for fun.  I can even understand how it could be a faux pas  to give a Muslim a dog or a pig as a gift, in the same way that you don't give a Chinese person a clock.  But merely having a picture of one is supposed to mean what, exactly?  The police are part of the pro-dog agenda?

I disagree with the rioting over the Muhammad thing, too, but I can at least understand why it would bother them, and there really are a very few instances where anyone would really want to draw a picture of Muhammad.   I really don't get the dog thing unless their claim is that this is some kind of secret anti-Muslim signal, which is still batshit crazy but at least has some sort of twisted logic to it.

They should have used a picture of Mohammad kissing a pig.


Fuck'em.

phoQ wrote:

From Wikipedia: “According to a generally unaccepted Sunni tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.”

http://c.imagehost.org/0455/rageboy.jpg

“Muslims outraged?”  It sounds like some rag head shopkeepers did not want to put up a postcard in their stores displaying something they thought was evil.  The only “outrage” the article delivers is that of offended Westerners as evidenced here and all over the net.  “How dare they be so backwards?”  My outrage at Muslims is for the tusken raider at work who washes their feet in the sink in the public bathroom.  I want to brush my teeth in there!

That's what I suspected.  This sounded more like something that some vocal asshole might have made a stink about, but I have trouble seeing people in the street about it.

I do like the thought of an evil-looking Satanas (it always sounds so much more evil in Spanish) sitting on a policeman's hat in an ad for the new number.

Dirckman wrote:

This whole little thread backs up my theory that any non-secular ethos should be treated as a mental disorder...

I've been calling these people "religiopaths" for years now.

Dirckman wrote:

Better yet, mix the Christians, Muslims and Jews in together with weapons so this whole fucking issue will resolve itself...

That's called "the Middle East" and it hasn't worked in centuries. Sorry.

pALEPHx wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

Better yet, mix the Christians, Muslims and Jews in together with weapons so this whole fucking issue will resolve itself...

That's called "the Middle East" and it hasn't worked in centuries. Sorry.

Good point....  I forgot a lot of history and geography....

Dirckman wrote:

Good point....  I forgot a lot of history and geography....

Like Taint said. Issokay. No one seems to give a crap about Western Civ, these days.