The Alternative Christmas Message and wot i fort of it

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Chalky, Dec 25, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Annoyed of Rum Ration writes:

    Dear Sir,

    Your decision to broadcast an 'alternative christmas message' delivered by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad troubles me greatly. The President and the nation he leads has funded and trained insurgent cells across Iraq who have been responsible for deaths of countless British Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Royal Marines. Your decision to record and broadcast this message is insulting to those who have died as a direct result of this man's international politics. The miasmatic and confusing political shroud that surrounds the intervention in Iraq is no excuse for your decision, nor should it be a shield for your conscience. Your decision to broadcast this message is an insult to our Armed Forces and, importantly, stands juxtaposed to the Christmas message you broadcast last year by Major Andrew Stockton.

    The right to an alternate perspective is an inherent part of the free press; something the men and women you offend will never have forgotten. You have taken the desire to present an alternate point-of-view beyond the realms of developing understanding and into the theatre of the absurb. No uncomfortbale truths will come of this; there will be no squirming of the Western conscience, nor revelation of the unified truths that we should strive for.

    The hypocrisy of this man is obscene, and your 'alternative' world view brings nothing to the debate but insult and hurt.

    Yours faithfully,

  2. Know your enemy.
  3. Channel 4?
  4. Forget that, the more important message was from Her Majesty.
    Be selfless and courageous in the face of difficulty.

  5. Spot on!
    They are lurking everywhere!
  6. For Chalky -

    I respect your POV and I personally dislike the guy pretty intensely, but there is a legitimate freedom of speech argument. Labour attacked this today on the grounds it's 'offensive' to people - how many times have we heard them use that argument to stifle debate in an area where members of the service community would like to weigh in?

    I also know a couple of Telic veterans (including a close friend of mine seriously injured in Basra) who were very interested in what he had to say.

    Having unfortunately been acquainted with the consequences of his country's involvement in southern Iraq I can't stand the man, but having a go at Channel 4 on the grounds that it's 'offensive' or an 'insult' to the dead seems to miss the point really. The difference between our society and theirs is (or should be) that offensive things can be broadcast, which is a point you make until you arbitrarily decide that this message can't make a contribution:

    "You have taken the desire to present an alternate point-of-view beyond the realms of developing understanding and into the theatre of the absurb. No uncomfortbale truths will come of this; there will be no squirming of the Western conscience, nor revelation of the unified truths that we should strive for.

    The hypocrisy of this man is obscene, and your 'alternative' world view brings nothing to the debate but insult and hurt."

    So in other words freedom of speech until we decide otherwise. I have to part company with you there. Some might say - indeed would say (in a world of rendition, Guantanamo, bugging the UN while trying to get a resolution and falsifiying dossiers to justify mass civilian deaths) - that the Iranian president doesn't exactly have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

    It's not enough to say that "the miasmatic and confusing political shroud that surrounds the intervention in Iraq is no excuse for your decision, nor should it be a shield for your conscience" - to many in the Middle East that cuts as little ice as the excuses some of the lefty apologists for Ahmadinejad make over here. There is going to be a US dialogue with Iran (whether you or I like it or not, and sincerely, I don't) so in the circumstances Channel 4 had reasonable grounds (beyond the obvious sensationalism) to make the broadcast. The irony is some of the responses to it have fallen into Ahmadinejad's trap of seeming more intransigent than he himself did in it.

    All of which is just a long-winded way of saying I disagree with you on Channel 4 (if not the man himself!).
  7. From their own mouths comes their own condemnation!

    I say let them speak - Ahmedinejad, Mugabe, Al Bashir, Kony and not forgetting our own Brown, Blair, Bush, Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

    If we don't hear what they have to say we are less able to form our own balanced judgement on the vile acts and vitriol that they are responsible for.

    I am quite able to see through what these men are up to and don't need the media to hold my hand while I do it or, worse still, make my decisions for me.

    I DO however need the media to give me the opportunity to see it, hear it or read it for myself.
  8. I do not find the fact of what he has to say offensive, all though I disagree totally with the content. What is most upsetting to me, is the timing by C4, in setting it as an alternative to what Her Majesty had to say. The liberal elite in this Country are the real Third Column that needs watching, particularly in the Government and Media.
  9. And so the the seeds of self destruct have been sown. By broadcasting the message fro another nation the in-fighting escalates producing yet more arguments which have all been trotted out previously. Yawn. For God's sake - this was a message for people of another nation. If I wanted to see it I would have gone there. I am a UK national. I wish to here the message the message of our sovereign and our government - whatever the message is, and which ever party they are.

    Enough with the 'we must listen to this and that drivel' - NO. I say...NO. Let them all get on with it.

    Now, can we carry on please - another stuffing ball and chestnut over here. Thankyou.
  10. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    If Channel 4 want to shoot themselves in the foot by broadcasting some foriegn leader who executes christian converts on this christian nations holiest day who are we to stand in the way of crass stupidity? Unless of course it comes to the debate about funding this drivil.
  11. To be honest I can't see what the problem is - if you wanted to listen to the Queen's Christmas Message and didn't want to listen to "An alternative Xmas message" - use the buttons on the remote.

    If enough people did the sensible thing this year and listened to Her Maj then the Ch4 bigwigs will have a look at the viewer rating figures and work out that they have dropped a(nother) bollock and not be so fcuking stupid next year.

    If the alternative got the thumbs up then we have a problem of loyalties and values on our hands guys and should stand by for Robert "I'm not going to be told what to do by a X in a box" Mugabe in 2009!
  12. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    I agree with those postees who advocate broadcasting it. I haven't wtached it, and won't because what he has to say has no relevance in my life and I am disinterested in what he has to say. I am grown up enough to know what the core of his monologue will contain, namely we are the bad guys and they are the good. However I don't see the Queen lambasting the coroprate avarice of the West and its use of military means to secure mineral wealth in middle eastern regions. Horses for courses. Whilst Iran continues to be a country struggling to free itself of religious dogma and brutal opression, Amudinejhads message - whatever it contains - will always be of hypocrisy and obfuscation. Similarly one woman at the head of a gluttenously wealthy oligarchy and its legion of hangers on and minor parasites telling us to grip up whilst families see their own personal lives slide down the crapper because of the great western dream also seems a bit rich. No message at Christmas can bring comfort to what is wrong with this planet, and Channel 4s grandstanding to feed the revolutionary consciousness of the morally inept leaves me ambivalent and seeking other methods of inspiration. Christmas is a pagan festival, hijacked by Christianity and further bummed by corporate necessity. Theres your message, I suppose.

    Meanwhile, I'll open my presents and enjoy my midwinter holiday.

  13. Personally I think that the Queens Christmas Message should be broadcast at 11:00 on all channels. I think that more people would watch it then.
  14. This isn't a debate about the freedom for a station to broadcast what it likes. This is a debate about whether it should broadcast what it likes.

    Television, as a factual medium, is tested and regulated on whether it adds value to the debate; whether we, the viewer, come away from the episode informed, provoked, educated or challenged. I found this broadcast to provide none of these things for me. I learned nothing about Iran other than the intentions and attitudes that its President presented here were entirely in contradiction to what we know about him already. To me, it was nothing more than an opportunity to provoke without cause or benefit.

    I made a choice to watch. I made a choice to have my mind cranked open another notch and found myself merely angry. This, if nothing else, was a poorly constructed and wasted opportunity that gave me no insight into Iran. It presented me with no 'alternative world view' and was instead the passive-aggressive rhetoric of a man whose words should not be believed nor given credibility.
  15. I with you in this one lover. And has any one noticed the irony in this situation? He come's from a country where this is non-existent, yet we have no trouble in allowing him to spew his rhetoric upon us. Free speech is just an excuse. I would not be allowed to spent 10 mins slating Iran, why should we let him do it to us?

    And Chalky darling, I'm back in London... Do you want to get trouser shittingly drunk?
  16. This, I believe, is a good planeth. I shall be in touch...eth.
  17. Didn't watch it and will not, but if I had, it would have been as relevant to me as watching the annual drivel from our own head of state. The views of the most privileged, of whatever nation, are of very little consequence and this includes religious leaders.

    Homosexuality and Climate Change are equally dangerous, sayeth the ex-Nazi in the Vatican. He really knows his Humbug!
  18. I just want to say that you are a solid friend and I will never forget Keogh. I think you should reciprocate this sentiment by buying me lots of drinks.

    But back on thread...

    Iran sucks!
  19. Look at it from the Iranian point of view:-

    If I was an Iranian I would be pretty paranoid towards the West. In the 1950's Iran saw the Middle East's first Democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA under Kermit Roosevelt in order to keep the price of oil artificially low.

    The Shah of Iran was installed and a brutal regime killed and tortured Iranians for the next 30 years with the tacit agreement of both Britain and the USA until the popular fall of the Shah left the door open for religious fundamentalists led by the Ayatollahs.

    Today my neighbours in Afghanistan have been invaded by the Americans and Europeans and on my other border a massive and illegal invasion of Iraq has put the USA with it's insatiable greed for oil on the doorstep of my main source of wealth.

    Meanwhile the Mujahadeen El Khalk an internationally recognised Marxist terrorist organisation is protected and armed by the USA in Camp Ashraf on the Iraq/Iranian border. Terrorist attacks led by the MEK are now increasing in my southern cities and Israel and the powerful Neocon / AIPAC lobbies in the USA are calling for nuclear strikes on my country.

    Despite the combined power of the West I know that we are winning; The economically and morally bankrupt British [ever the opportunists] have finally been forced out of Iraq ignominiously with even their American allies openly critical of them. Iranian influence in Iraq has never been stronger. Afghanistan and Pakistan are lost to the Imperialists but like a slow-motion train wreck this is not yet realised by most of the West. The Palestinian conflict which is the key to peace and stability in the region is totally ignored [with the incredible appointment of the newly wealthy Blessed Saint Tone of London as the HMFIC what else could be expected??]

    The inept and corrupt Bush administration has effectively collapsed, Western economies are a shambles and even Cronkite admits that with Woolworths gone the war is lost.

    Couldn't understand why Almadinajad was being so reasonable. :thumright:

    Happy Trails

  20. Having read it and listened to opinions on here. could it just be that in one context he was right? If Christ was alive, and lets assume that Allah is as well, I`m quite sure that they would both be a little pissed off with mans inhumanity to man. Just a thought from an old man that does not have rose tinted glasses.

    Have a nice de- toxin, sorry boxing day.

Share This Page