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
Basically we're realising the stupidity of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and Gadafi - they were moderates by comparison, and very definitely anti-Islamist.
I hope Angela Merkel is feeling suitably ashamed of her 'every Tom, Dick & Harry who can get themselves on EU territory is welcome' policy.
Amongst the hordes of people coming to Europe from a failing Muslim state there was one who was an undercover IS agent. Who'd have thunk it hey Angela?
Jesus. At least this dozy mare hasn't got her finger on the button or we would be in trouble.
I guess we all saw it coming. You have loads of refugees coming here in the most chaotic of fashions. One would have to be pretty naive to assume that not a single one among them has bad intentions or might develop them over time. With IS losing ground at home, they become more aggressive elsewhere. I'm seeing this as a sign of weakness. But I'm not celebrating because of all the innocent who died and were wounded in this violent attack.
That famous, or infamous "exchange" between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck. Affleck being the loud mouth bully against the smart kid, not listening to either Maher or Harris, trying to shut them up... That video got me so angry. Affleck is as honest a debater as he is a good actor.
I have lived in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, and there the women are not required to cover completely apart from thei eyes, but simply to wear an abaya (which does not cover face or head) and indeed covers less than a Christian Nun's habit.
I think Christians and Muslems are very similar religions, with similar rules to living. Mohammed was a prophet like Jesus, who came down to advise mankind how to live their lives. Many prophets are common to different religions, and are recognised. The difference is that the teachings of Jesus are brought to us via four Books in the New Testament, which are were written after Jesus' death and are all slightly different - allowing for multiple interpretations. However, Mohammed turned up 500 years later and said that he was here to resolve the confusion and his words were to be followed precisely.
An example of this might be Ramadan, which is basically the same as Lent. Key difference being that Muslims follow it more literally than most Christians. Agony on clothing, look at a Nun's habit or a Priest's cassock, and they are pretty similar to Muslem clothing.
The second big difference is that Islam is 500 years younger than Christanity, and still going through growing pains trying to find the correct path. Just remember the troubles we had in the UK 500 years ago between Protestants and Catholics - indeed Catholics are still banned by law from the throne. And we have just celebrated Bonfire Night, which was a celebrations of the defeat of the Cathoics to seize power.
Next, Middle East as countries only really got going around the middle of the 20th Century, and have been dominated by Western Countries (mainly UK and USA), and are held together by dictators from minority groups (e.g Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). These Royal Families are incredibly rich and want to maintain their power and seek the support of the West to do so. The young population of these countries are growing up in the modern world and want a say in how their countries are run.
Finally, the Middle East countries have an awful lot of oil, and the West will not tolerate any Leader or Government who may deny them. Remember the the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein took plance because Saddam wanted to control the oil fields of Kuait to restrict oil supplies. Once again,this will annoy thise in the Middle East who want to run their own affairs.
Any religion where woman are required to do anything is dodgy. So it has to be men that require them to do this as there is no other gender. Why can't they make their own decisions. And we have not even mentioned FGM yet, barbaric and many people feel uneasy talking about it but it goes on and something that an average Christian liberal of western values would not even consider.
The men also cover up - they wear white, instead of black (although in the hot sun I concede the men get a better deal).
And remember degrees of clothing required by law is al relative. Women are allowed to go topless on most Europan beaches, but would be arrested on most American beaches.
FGM is undefendable, but remember that Jews practice Male Genital Mutilation, which no-one critizses or even comments on. But then alleged control of Western media by Jews is a whole new debate
I criticise mutilation. Any form of it. Even by Jews.
I was on a school trip in Antwerp not so long ago where we were guided through the various ethnicities' districts. I'm talking the Arab, Chinese and Jewish districts. The guide kept informing us about Muslim and Jewish food habits and the strict rules these people are enslaved to follow in terms of how to kill animals and how to process the food. I kept challenging the guide by constantly asking him why. It must have been annoying for the poor man but as a scientist I always pursue the 'why' behind things and in my more irritating moments I tend to do so in cultural matters too. ;-) I am well aware of the fact that it makes no sense to do that but I couldn't help it. He kept spelling out these ridiculous rules about who gets to eat first in the family and how food has to be consumed lest you end up burning in Hell. So I kept asking: why? Because it's tradition. But why was it ever made tradition? Because it says so in the Holy Book. But why was it ever written in said book? Because it's demanded by their god. But why? Why would said god be displeased with anyone eating pig? And so it went on...
I mean, if you say you don't want to eat pig because it gives you gas or you prefer other protein sources or because you fear overconsumption of animal fats or because you're worried about too many hormones etcetera in the food or because you don't want to support animal slaughter ... all of these reasons are perfectly legit. But because your parents have taught you that it's wrong because it says so in a book that's over a thousand years old, is not a good reason. That means the reason is irrational.
We seem to endorse "freedom of religion" as a fundamental right because it's a cultural thing and whatnot but IMO it also implies that we endorse a way of living were people are forbidden to think for themselves or to criticise habits that are age-old yet haven't an ounce of logic behind them.
Plenty on pressure groups on this topic so , sorry but completely untrue:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/12/council-of-europe-under-pressure-to-reconsider-its-resolution-condemning-male-circumcision
See quote from Harris:
“[Religion] allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic.”
its very hard for other religions to scrutinise the basic rituals of Islam when their own are just as illogical.
When you put it like that it's actually embarrassing how childishly inane it all is.
The problem is the Elvis believer gets sectioned whilst the Christian gets respect, tax exemptions and schools endorsed by the government to enable him to pass down his lunacy to the next generation.
By the way I'm not particularly singling Christians out here. You're all f**king mental.
Affleck has no reasoning. He just shouts accusation and spread labels.
Also, it feels nice to have guessed Troy only had super simplistic incoherent explanations to offer, before reading his last posts :)
I refer to my comments above about Mohammed giving rules on how to live your life, and many Muslims taking it literally. For example, pork very quickly goes off, so in days before refrigerators would be very hard to keep in the desert, so it was logical not to eat pigs. Similarly, drinking alcohol in the desert is best avoided. The Christian West has agreed to generally comply with the spirit of the gospels, but Muslims are more literal in following the text, so they still avoid pork and alcohol despite air conditioning and refrigerators.
Alcohol is an interesting one as there are plenty of Christian groups who advocate avoiding alcohol. Even the US, the supposed beacon of freedom, had prohibition.
Unfortunately, a lot of this is probably true.
Yeah you're right. Probably all a stitch up by the CIA to justify the yanks invading again.
Or are you saying it was SPECTRE?
Why are some people always so desperate to avoid laying the blame squarely where it lies? Or is the whole IS thing and all the refugees getting washed up on beaches part of the CIA's grand plan as well and we're all being hoodwinked?
Anything to avoid the possibility of suggesting that Islam might be a factor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
US strategy paper to destabilise the Middle East, which would/could cause deaths of thousands of innocent civilians
General Wesley Clark confirms US plan to destabilise Middle East by starting wars
It's not as if the US hasn't got form...
http://listverse.com/2009/07/11/10-cases-of-american-intervention-in-latin-america/
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/29/us-latin-america-haiti-honduras
It's not a question of people desperate to avoid laying the blame where it belongs, but to try and understand what is actually happening in our name. Understanding is not the same as condoning.
Are we then the better side, sadly no. Drones kill everybody at a wedding, we apologize and life goes on. We western world should also look long and deep in a mirror. The needless dead in the middle east and the needless dead in Europe should invoke a similar response: the bastards!
I am afraid that the Islam still has some catching up to do to the Christian massacres that have been involved in the name of Christianity & greed, who civilizations have been destroyed in the name of Christianity in south, middle and North America. Perhaps growing up and stepping away from religion is a painful process in growing up. And perhaps humanity will not make it because we are mostly idiots that are great in laying blame instead of looking for real solutions. And perhaps our nature gets in the way of any solution ever.
I blame the bastards that have created the Paris Massacre, the dead in Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Libya, Egypt, etc. But I am not longer sure who is to blame unless I think in black & white.
Great solution, for small minds or hurt minds?