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
WHY CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG!
" We didn't start the fire, It was always burning, Since the world's been turning, No we didn't light it, But we tried to fight it" but failed.
Well, yes but I know this one thing - whenever someone claims to be killing in the name of religion they have immediately lost the moral argument, regardless of what they themselves believe about what their religion says. I think Christianity and Islam are by this stage reasonably well defined so I would submit that there is a right and wrong way to follow/worship your God. The differences between faiths often concern matters such as the liturgy but the faith in God and what that stands for are set out in the Christian religion very clearly - look at Exodus Chapter 20 for clearly defined rules on how a Christian is supposed to live his or her life, the sixth of these Commandments being: "Thou shalt not kill." You can't get much more crystal clear than that and I'm sure the Koran has a similar divine law. I think even Lord Denning would have had bother defining that sixth commandment any other way under statutory interpretation.
Easy, it's all fiction. Next question?
Let's start another war in the name of Superman. At least it'd be more original...
8-|
Its almost impossible to believe in hindsight but this is a perfect example of what I was talking about, The Archbishop of Canterbury seriously suggesting that we begin to dismantle our own legal system and have Sharia law in an attempt to maintain social cohesion. (ie we dont want to upset Muslims so we should give them their own legal system). Its just an amazing and shameful thing to say. When you think of how long it has taken for our legal system to evolve and how it is the envy of many other countries. To give that up and have a seperate legal system for Muslims!.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". That is exactly the issue. You do have to choose. We all do. And to give the impression that Muslims have a choice and dont have to follow the rules that everyone else does encourages the view that they dont have to confirm with our own values.
1000 millions against 60 millions or so, trading "values" as well as Insults, out of unfounded fears and craves repression for retaliation, The Bible are our "Khoran"-a book of VALUES-indeed!-It starts as WAR, and this one started in Syria..!-it also started in Iraq-and it also started in Indo-china..and other places.To stop that then all You have to do is stopping the wars that is going on..!
This may not be PC, but this is what happens when you have mass migration from a different counyry/culture/religion. Small migration is fine as it is absorbed. But mass migration allows people to form communities and continue with their own way of living. Look at Ireland, they are still suffering from 17th century colonisation, where the descendents of the colonists are unionists still arguing with the nationalists.
Rightly or wrongly, if you have mass immigration from a different culture, then give them British passports and tell them that they and their descendants are as British as anyone else, then it is reasonable for them to claim that their culture is also "British". Therefore why should they change? Why shouldn't the British legal system evolve to meet their needs?
I'm not sure what winds me up more: this prick (well whoever holds the job title not necessarily the individual involved) or the pathetic media who go to him for soundbites like his opinion matters.
Who do you represent exactly? C of E attendances average 1 million a week. Premier and football league attendances can hit 800,000 thats not to mention non league football or people who actually play but dont go to a match. Nor does it take into account the amount of people who watch Sky Sports of MOTD. Added to that the C of E have a church in every village so most of the population cant need to drive more than 10 minutes to their nearest place of worship. How many of them would be so keen to go if they had to drive 4 hours to Stoke on a wet tuesday in february?
So the point I am making is why is the Archbishop of Canterbury given airtime? Why are we not asking Greg Dyke's opinion on how the law should be shaped?
SP took £40m in a week. Given that cinema tickets dont cost £40 that represents way more bums on seats than 1 million. So why are we asking Babs or DC for a comment?
The media have a responsibility not to reach for religious leaders like a comfort blanket whenever there is a news story they need someone to pontificate because they represent such a tiny amount of the nation. Its just a historical knee jerk reaction which we are stuck with after bowing down (no pun intended) to God for the last 2000 years.
Its going to take time I suppose waiting for all the last generation to die off but in 100 years you'd like to think that people who actually go to church will be sniggered at the same way trainspotters are as being eccentric/sad/mental.
As for Sharia law being allowed in this country. Do you seriously want me to comment on that?
It seems to me that this with this attack we are reaching the tipping point where people who previously would've held their tongues due to fear of the PC bullshit that has ensnared us are starting to stand up and say actually I'm sick of this and its about time Muslims accommodated us and realised they need to abide by the same rules as the rest of us without exception.
Well I would argue with that point personally. In my book unless you can a) speak English and b) name the 1966 World Cup winning team* you dont get anywhere near a passport.
*Applies to England only. Welsh need to be able to talk you through Gareth Edwards try v the All Blacks in 1973, NI applicants need to know who Gerry Armstrong is and Scots need to errr.... I havent quite thought this through have I? :P I suppose Archie Gemmill scoring in 1978 but still going out as usual counts as the closest they have ever had to success!
I also agree that it should considered a reason for immediate deportation if one is unable to name the 1966 World Cup winning team. Especially in the UK.
As an aside, the bombing campaigns in Syria and Iraq are costing the US govt (for that please read US taxpayer) $5 million /day. Total cost to date (estimated) of US $5 billion. Please read that again so that it sinks in. That is just Syria & Iraq since the latest sorties began. I can't imagine that US $5 billion doesn't result in some civilian casualties on the other side.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/12/Fight-Against-ISIS-Has-New-Price-Tag-5-Billion-and-Counting
The military industrial complex is the only real winner here. The taxpayer certainly isn't.
That's my girlfriend buggered, then. Where are you proposing to send her?
:(
You should only do that if she is 100% on board with the idea, you know.
On a footballing history re-education program.
Chortle.
I'm guessing that would be contrary to Sharia law!!
Very interesting. thanks
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/cartoonists-pay-tribute-in-aftermath-of-paris-terror-attacks-a6735876.html
What exactly is Western society as a whole doing? Abama's speech this afternoon was lacking any real impact apart from making it clear he wont be sending troops in. Hollande sending aircraft carrier which is something I suppose. Sweet FA from Cameron.
Whose needs do you mean? What do these needs consist of?
I liked Obama's speech. Regarding France's response it will be ferocious and merciless. It already is. Whatever some Americans might think, it's not a nation of surrendering cowards.
'My thoughts are with the people of Paris tonight. We stand in solidarity with the French.'
You sure about that son? Because I'm pretty sure that France are going to be bombing the buggery out of these c**ts now. As a defender of Hamas you sure you're going to be standing alongside France on that one?
Not sure which is worse- his long history of terrorist appeasement or his current hypocrisy.
Can there be a single person in Labour who honestly thinks they can win an election with a bloke who is happy to class Hezzbollah as 'friends'? If we're ratcheting up security then I hope they are tapping this clown's phone.
He said it was not only an attack against France, but against all mankind. True. He said that France was the US oldest ally, which is also true and too often forgotten by some Americans.
His stand on Hezbollah is merely an extension of the trust British politicians have in multiculturalism. He is an appeaser, but he's not the only one and not even the worst offender.
Don't forget the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail is pure distortion of everything he does on a daily basis. For example the Cenotaph issue last week - they slated him for not bowing low enough(!), yet failed to report that he stayed behind to actually talk to the veterans unlike Cameron and co who rushed off for the hospitality lunch
Maybe. But he is the only one who is an election away from having his finger on the button.
That's not going to stop the homegrown terrorists though (and when I say homegrown, I mean those within the Schengen trading area). They don't even need to use a mobile phone. They can just cross a border & meet for coffee somewhere to discuss plans.
Cargo coming into the US/Canada is not monitored either (at least not fully). As Trump has indicated, if Mexicans can cross the border into the US, anyone can.
Cameron will certainly get re-elected, don't you think?