It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
At least he is postulating, in a calm but childlike fashion. Someone now needs to demonstrate to him why he is wrong.
I'm more interested in what questions, if any, he got from his audience after his pronouncements, and how he responded. This will determine whether it is a failure to think it through or a firmly held delusion.
I am more in agreement with Obama's approach, but I realize others have a different view.
The debate is a good one to have.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/obama-tells-moderate-muslims-dont-let-isis-hijack-islam
http://www.worldreportnow.com/obama-asks-international-community-to-address-grievances-that-terrorists-exploit/302/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls
I agree with you that some who are themselves not murderers sympathize with the extremists. That is 100% for sure. The question is why and how can one appeal to them to stop that? Is it even possible or is their sense of religious identity so strong that they are more likely to agree with the killers no matter what (the victimization syndrome).
Politically it is a very difficult thing to address as a leader representing the West. You want to stop the ones who are killers without further antagonizing or creating new ones who may not be killers but who may be sympathizers. The aiders and abetters if you will. How can you win hearts and minds within the community? For example, if we asked the muslim people who were agitated in that video you posted a few days back what they thought about Denmark, I wonder what they would say. Would they say, "served you right?" I wonder. Or would they say that it was unacceptable for that person to have been killed at a free speech meeting even though they were offended that Lars Vilks was there. What would they say about ISIL/ISIS (I'm referring to those people in the video in particular)? Would they identify it as a religious war against their religion, or first and foremost as a war against terrorists?
I personally think you have to frame the argument against the terrorists/killers carefully, without further antagonizing the broader community, which is what Obama is trying to do.
As we've seen in some videos on this thread, some people take visceral offense if they feel that their religion is being specifically targeted or threatened. Conversely, some people seem to go out of their way to show that they are being targeted for their religious beliefs in other videos. In both cases, their religious identity is very strong.
There was a very interesting discussion on this matter on CNN yesterday on AC360 with Maajid Nawaz & Farid Zacharia. However, I can't find the video online.
Just a quick update
Quite frankly, this guy really should have known better. They have a history of doing this over there and he should have realized that. When in Rome, as they say.
Having said that, they are 'our' friends, as I've said before, because they help to power our homes, our cars, our SUV's and our way of life. :)
Until 'we' take a less hypocritical view of the world there really isn't going to be much change, sadly.
I guess we selectively care who does the beheading over in that part of the world.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
I agree. Quite frankly, is it not the murderers who should have known better?
Yeah, I mean, you know, you don't want the punishment, you don't do the crime. Or act as if you did do it. Or something...
I hope you know Thunderfinger was sarcastic.
I agree. If you bring that stuff outside the homelands, you should be deported, no ifs, ands or buts.
I wouldn't exactly say toughen up though, because arguably that's what a few people chose to do in their own crazy way recently. I would say, accept it, or leave.
All the caricatures we talk about were created in countries where it was not illegal, and yet some people claim they should have respected other countries' laws, and that they somehow deserved what followed. Well IMO, it means you should censor yourself now that the Internet can mean your message can be seen everywhere... Power to those with the most intolerant laws then.
Regarding this incident, if one makes statements about Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, where it is against the law (a nation that is by far the most restrictive in terms of any and all rights), then the severe consequences should be expected. It's just common sense. They are a country that does this to people, including foreigners, who break their laws. That's why I'll never work in that particular country.
He was naive and stupid. Period.
Regarding your point about self-censoring in an open society - that's an interesting view. In the west, I think we have 4 options:
1. try to find all radicals and expel them (I don't see how this is practical since they are unlikely to freely identify themselves, so there is the risk of unfairly targeting moderates, thereby potentially encouraging racism, bigotry and prejudice)
2. clamp down via a police-state (facism) which will result in less freedoms and privacy for all
3. try not to antagonize the deeply religious among us who are likely to be irrationally sensitive to religious slights. I am not saying that their behaviour is condonable (and we know it's not rational) - I just realize that it's not stoppable either (to what they see as a religious offense).
They are likely to violently react to perceived offenses due to the strength of their religious convictions (I am personally not a religious person because I don't see it as logical, but I have read enough about human behaviour to know that we are not as logical as we may think).
Look at the way those people reacted in the theatre to the video by Vilks for instance
This is the self-censoring option
4. ban religion (difficult to enforce - and then the argument will be that people's right to free worship of religion was being curtailed)
I leave it to everyone to find their own way with any of the above 4 options. To each their own.
However, I agree with your premise that in order to keep society open, we may have to self-censor (or at least try not to antagonize), and so the most intolerant may actually gain power. It may just be a matter of moderating the tone of the criticism, but then again, that may not work either.
The 5th option is of course to fund the scientists, get them to work harder and finally determine and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe was created, thereby finally delegitimizing religion once and for all :)
I knew I missed one. That might in fact be the 6th and actually most practical option. :)
In all seriousness, I think G. Bush and co. actually thought of this one a while back when they were going to spread democracy in the middle east.
Well, I'm not surprised...
And I noticed that when terrorists die, on the other hand, you explain that they nevertheless made a point, that they were not so stupid as most say.
Funny how relativists always end defending the worst, and blaming the good people.
Let me be clear.
The gentleman who is going to be killed in Saudi Arabia broke the law. He will pay the price under the law of the country he is living in. He should have known the law of the country he was operating in. Either he wanted to die, wasn't too bright, or was not aware of the laws of the country he lived in. Those are the only 3 possible conclusions. The kingdom who's restrictive (even for Islam it is the most restrictive country) laws he broke are supported by Western powers who need its oil. That is unacceptable too because if it were not supported (including provision of police equipment and military equipment to suppress the population), the kingdom might have fallen by now.
The muslim terrorists and murderers who commit crimes in Western countries should pay the price for their contravention of the laws in the countries they live in. The full price, whatever that may be, based on the respective laws. So should those who aid and abet them. Not those who just happen to share the religion as these terrorists though.....that would be completely illogical.
Although I'm not religious, I personally don't support any policies that might lead to innocent people being discriminated against based on their religion. I believe that everyone in a free society should have the freedom to practice their religion in private and only in private as long as they don't infringe on the country's laws or on others. I also don't believe that religions are inherently bad or evil. Just illogical. In any religion there are some with very extreme beliefs however....these are the ones to look out for.
Of the 4 response options I outlined in my previous comments, you're welcome to choose one that you subscribe to, or provide another alternative option. As far as I can see, those are the only options available as a response in western countries - like it or not. You are the one who proposed the self-censoring option. For me, it is one of 4.
I don't mind which option any country takes, but each option has consequences. A free society is necessarily at a disadvantage when fighting radicals, if it wants to retain its freedoms while doing it, because radicals don't care about freedoms. A free society, by definition, has to.
They are not really toughing up, in fact one using violence against someone mocking his beliefs is nothing but a spineless coward.
That's all well and good. People are dead in Europe who had nothing to do with it, regardless, and that is what I'm against.
The chap in Saudi Arabia on the other hand broke the law of his land and now he must face his punishment. Until the laws are changed, that's the way it is. Saying otherwise is being hypocritical.
We can preach and judge all we want, but we need to find solutions to the problem without losing the freedoms that we spent centuries (and countless lives of our own ancestors) trying to build up.
I am looking for practical solutions for Western countries concerned with violence on their shores. I laid out 4 in a prior post. I'm looking for additional ones to debate or am willing to debate the 4 proposed.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/43850/saudis-could-still-flog-woman-who-dared-drive-car
PS remember the demonstrator in Tiananman Square who stood up against a tank? Would it have been his fault if he had been killed as he knew demonstrating was against the law? Or the same logic for those demonstrating for their rights in 1960/70s South Africa?