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
I say let it be Assad for now (the only chance) and then transition to full democracy/capitalism in an orderly fashion over 10 yrs or so, with Iranian involvement.............
The problem then is The House of Saud. They can't stand the Iranians and won't go for it (Saudi sheiks have in fact been funding IS).
What a mess. That's why Russia coming into the picture is not such a bad thing. They don't care about the House of Saud (unlike the US).
Exactly.........well said.
Assad in Syria. Mubarak in Egypt. Hussein in Iraq.
They've replaced Mubarak with Sisi but can't agree on Assad for Syria.
It's the only way to keep a lid on the fundamentalism.
Some say this all went to hell when the Soviet Union fell apart. During the cold war, there was a delicate balance in that area (superpower backing of certain sides).
PS: where do you think IS got their weapons from? Most of it is US material taken from the deserted Iraqi army and the rest is coming from Saudi money.
As it was a Russian airplane, the outcry of the world was barley hearable. Just imagine it would have been a German, UK or US airplane with tourists on board.
Today/tonight, of course everybody is thinking about the French, but many ignore that the IS has struck twice within a short time.
Something has to be done.
From Wikipedia (how many knew that Bin Laden met the Saudi king)?:
"The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait under Saddam Hussein on August 2, 1990, put the Saudi kingdom and the royal family at risk. With Iraqi forces on the Saudi border, Saddam's appeal to pan-Arabism was potentially inciting internal dissent. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Saudi Defense Minister Sultan, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, and offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his Arab legion. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. forces in Saudi territory.[90] Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led them to try to silence him. The U.S. 82nd Airborne Division landed in north-eastern Saudi city of Dhahran and was deployed in the desert barely 400 miles from Medina."
The real situation IMHO is far more complex. Take a look at "justice" in Saudi, the way they treat women (stonings), homosexuals, atheists etc. Their interpretation of what is just and fair on these issues is fundamentalist in my book but we turn a blind eye as they keep it within their borders and we sell them billions in arms.
The idea that a woman can't show her hair (or face) in public (no choice, no option) is fundamentalist in my book but (unlike France) we tip toe around these issues in an attempt to be inclusive.
With hindsight, we have been too liberal. Too concerned with not offending anyone, too concerned with the rights of minorities compared to the rights of the majority and too concerned with the taboo of racism rather than legitimate questions concerning a belief system that, in many areas, is directly opposed to our own, long held and hard fought liberal heritage.
Ten months ago, I posted this link after C Hebdoe to show back in 2007, some were bending over backwards not to offend Muslims rather than defend freedom of speech and I make no apology for posting it again. (listen to the applause at 1.45)
I think that should apply to all religions though. All religions, and not just those belonging to countries with whom our governments may be having disputes with.
I'm as liberal as the next guy (except here in America where I guess peeps like Trump consider me a dirty Socialator), but we must remember the immortal word of Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez: BALANCE.
And you cant expect people to give up strongly held religious beliefs. Why should they? in their own versions of reality, they are 100% correct. Its fact.
I'm saying don't encourage multiculturalism. I don't think they encourage it in Germany or the Scandinavian countries. I think this is more a problem for past colonizing countries.
This is not Liberal or Conservative; it's REALITY.
Conceptually, if you could put a bubble around traditional Muslim countries and let them get on with it, in hundreds of years, they would work things out and become "western". If that sounds like I am saying Islam is backward, yes, that is what I am saying.
But they are not in a bubble, they are seeking to turn the clock back and apply their own values to our society. To answer your question, I am not sure but the solution starts with honesty and we cant seem to able to agree that religion is at the root of this. Until we can deal with this taboo and manage to separate this from racism, we cant move forward. There are still many many people who interpret criticism of Islam as racist. This is a major issue and we have to deal with this as it is a major barrier.
Perfect example below:
However, if one encourages it, then there is even less incentive to integrate and adapt, particularly with first generation immigrants. I'm a big believer that one must integrate and adapt, and so I don't like the concept. I realize there are exceptions, but that's the way I feel. I felt that way when I lived in the UK in the early 90's (not enough integration of first generation immigrants). It sort of encourages 'ghettos' because of this desire to be with others like yourself.
Regarding the one religion/culture that you suggest is not integrating as well as the others.....you probably have a point. I don't know why that is, but it's a problem.
How does one explain the majority of other muslims not integrating (if that is in fact what you're saying).......those who are not from that sect, and whose women do not cover up entirely?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-survey-of-british-muslim-attitudes-is-so-profoundly-disconcerting-10070358.html