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
Excuse me! Have I somehow misinterpreted you, or are you in fact implying that these terrorist acts have not been met with severe condemnation through out the muslim world? Are you making this up, or are you just ("happily") misinformed?
Yes, lots of nonsense being written about 'Muslims'. Did we expect English Catholics to come out and march after the Birmingham Pub Bombings and apologise for their coreligionists? It's like saying Americans should go and apologise to the Vietanemese and Iraqi people for the tens of thousands of innocents that they killed in both countries. While we're at it maybe Britain should apologise for all the dead and of countless pointless colonial wars. Ain't gonna happen.
Just because x in Indonesia is a Muslim does it make him responsible for y Muslim's murderous insanity in France. Does Tony Blair and Geroge Bush's insanity make all Brits and Americans guilty by association? If so, I don't see much sign of an apology.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/11/sajid-javid-muslim-communities-special-burden-terrorists-culture-secretary-paris-attackers
Agree with this. It's important to keep a clear head when finding fault and placing blame. It's almost like blaming men in most cases, since men tend to perpetrate most crimes. I'm sorry, but it's too much to ask me to apologize for men in general even though I am one.
The Muslim community is not a monolithic block by any means, but some of the "moderates" did excuse the murders because of the blasphemy of CH.
It depends. I will never blame Catholicism for a Catholic's crime, unless it is done in the name of Catholicism, or Catholicism is used to justify the crime, or excuse it. Same with Islam: the terrorists murdered cartoonists whose sole "crime" was blasphemy. Many Muslims in France, and I admire them for it, condemned the terrorists attacks in Paris. Some excused it. Sorry, but that is wrong.
You left out the parts about us Yanks murdering and displacing countless numbers of Native Americans whom were there long before anyone from Spain, England and France made it to the New World, so that us colonists could stake our claim to two oceans and all points in between. Oh, and there we are displacing and abusing blacks so that we had a cheaper method of picking cotton, well the Southerners that is. Let's not forget us Yanks visiting other lands because those poor savages never heard of God and they would burn in hell otherwise despite the fact that they were perfectly fine before our arrival.
Yes we get it, America is not above reproach and has it's share of blame. Well the ones with common sense and some historic understanding get it. But the freedoms many of you enjoy today started here. Even dumb old George Bush somehow managed not to murder anyone whom made fun of him in an editorial cartoon.
And against the terrorists today.
I think you'll find those freedoms actually STARTED in the UK - remember Magna Carta and all that? ;) Many of the freedoms and ideas that became he foundations of the American constitution were either already enshrined in English law or originated in the UK and Europe. The United States embraced those existing freedoms, took a lot of other existing ideas, and put them into practice and made them their own, with some rather significant teething problems along the way, as you rightly point out.
I totally agree that there are no excuses for the attacks - that is completely wrong. From a personal perspective and long before those attacks I have long wondered what exactly is achieved by the cartoons of Mohammad but ultimately yes of course there can be no acceptance of any idea that blasphemy justifies this kind of violence. However it's a shame the wider issues are being overshadowed by an ultimately rather sterile debate about the right to cause offence. Apparently Charlie Hebdo sacked a cartoonist for anti-Semitic work he'd done - not sure where that fits into the current debates about 'freedom of speech'. Clearly Charlie Hebdo did actually think there are boundaries that should not be crossed, but those applied to one religious group and not another. As many Muslims have said, the Mohammad cartoons seemed to them less like a principled stand for free speech and more like an act of Muslim-baiting and attacking an already stigmatised community. Any way, as I have stated from the start, the issue of the cartoons is a sad and rather sterile aspect of a much more important wider debate that embraces far bigger issues.
On a side note, one of the main objectives of the jihadis is to try and get ordinary non-Muslims to associate every terrorist act with 'Islam'. Of course they will use 'Islam' as their justification - their whole aim is to drive a wedge between Muslims and non Muslims. They despise integration and the fact that everyday all over the world Muslims and non Muslims show they can live alongside eachother perfectly peacefully. So while I share many peoples concerns about the religion, and do think Muslims could perhaps do more to address the causes of terrorism, I don't think it's incumbent on every Muslim to come out and self flagellate for the benefit of everyone else. And I think it's important for us non Muslims to continue to insist on making a clear distinction between most moderate (and even extremist but non-violent ) Muslims, and the small minority who would use Islam to justify killing cartoonists and Jewish shoppers.
Not sure Netanyahu's presence will have particularly helped, but understandable that France couldn't say 'no' to him. He is a fundamentalist of a different kind - a hard line Israeli nationalist committed to an Israel whose boarders fully encompass the West Bank. And a man who was contributed more than most to the on-going misery of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs in the occupied territories. He is the kind of person the jihadis dream of as an opponent. Images of him at the front of the march are a big coup for the jihadis.
He has missed several opportunities to make peace and continues to make excuses. Disgusting given the lives that are wasted as a result of his attitude. As a right winger, he is perfectly placed to bring the hardliners in his coalition into order, but chooses to take the politically expedient route instead.
Which freedoms are you speaking of?
I think he sees himself as playing the long game. His role is to keep Israel's allies at bay while Arab territory is gradually encroached on and any territorial integrity of the West Bank is destroyed.
He may well get what he wishes for, which is a greater Israel, but he may also end up with a Muslim majority population in the process, which would be interesting!
Absolutely right. That's what everyone keeps telling him but he keeps playing for time while lives are lost.
If he had stepped up when he got into power, Obama would have supported him and I'm confident we would have got somewhere by now. Instead he took the easy route. Can't stand him.
Constitution, Bill of Rights, check it out. Yes, it does vary country to country.
@Getafix, Magna Carta, eh. We always thought that was loosely based on Robin Hood. :)
But that is a valid point and I stand corrected. Certainly worked in keeping King John in check.
I could just as well claim that your precious constitution 'started' with The French Revolution. Which again 'started' with the secularist movement during the Renaissance. Which again 'started with'... etc... etc...
Our "western freedom" is a result of a gradual democratic process lasting many centuries through out several countries. To claim it all 'started with The American Constitution' is pretty daft, although it of course played its role in the development. But "our" 'western freedom' is still far from Perfect, and the term is in itself a questionable paradox. "Western Democratic Principals" is a far better term, and the democratic process is still ongoing. That's something many American traditionalists should remember in their reactive, conservative worshiping of this old, and in fact considerably dated text...
This is just common sense, though. The wider discussion needs to be about the varying ways the problem can be tackled, not just us liberally-minded people offering out hand shandies and standing shoulder to shoulder with our muslim friends. Their is a direct link with Islam, however skewed and divisive that link might be. A lot of these fundamentalists do not start life as such, they are moderate, well meaning individuals who frequent the mosque with similar like-minded muslims. It's not unreasonable for there to be a discussion about increased vigilance within the community. Yes, a lot has been done, but clearly more can still be done. What really is a shame is the lack of a hierarchical system within the Islamic faith, even on a superficial level it would do them wonders to have a figure head who can publicly denounce such atrocities.
Yes, it seems a bit like Protestanism, in that there are all these wacky sects and clerics doing their own thing. That is one of the things that makes the lunatics so hard to deal with - anyone can set themselves up as Koran-basher and preach gibberish.
You are aware how many Muslims yesterday were part of the March? Not just in Paris, in the whole of France? And how many of them claimed just what you demand they do?
By the by, one of the killers may seen himself as jihadi and whatnot. But along with extremist propaganda there was also found p*rn in his belongings so it's anybody's guess how serious the guy was about his beliefs, no?
I agree with your point. The funny thing though, is that far from all people who join these islamist groups are in fact born and raised muslims. ISIS and Al Qaida get many new recruits from european countries, and not all of them are muslims, some not even of arab ethnicity… Its obvious that the fundamentalist groups are attractive for people who are outcast, or live struggling lives. Its not so much about religion as a hate for the western world, or their own existence. One possibility to deal with the problem might be to make sure people are probably educated about Islam, as many of the fundamentalists in fact know relatively little about the muslim faith. They learn what they want to learn, without understanding the religion in a broader context. But the point is that its the hatred towards the western world which fuels these terrorist movements. The religion is in many cases just a matter of justifying violent actions, give it another meaning. (Too much common sense for you?)
And honestly I think its somewhat pathetic for the western world to question why that hatred is there. Actually arabs, or the third world in general, have many reasons to feel anger or hatred towards the western world, lets face it… And alienating or blaming Muslims in general, and fueling further division on basis of ignorance, wil not help matters, that's for sure. The growing issue of racism towards arab immigrants through out Europe is just another element which will fuel these radical thoughts even more. The imperialistic fashion in which we're trying to force western democracy upon arab states is neither a healthy solution. "We have just bombed you, killed your uncles, sisters, children and parents, and by the way we despise you and wan't to use your natural resources for our own benefits, but now you should learn our western values and elect the political leaders we have chosen for you…" Its more of an Imperialism 2.0 than anything; "the white burden" of implementing our "sophisticated political systems" on these "crazy arabs". And people wonder why they don't like us…
One must be rational, think for oneself and be sceptical. I think that's the solution for this nonsense. Easier said than done however.