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
The fact is, one of the greatest assets the modern day terrorist has is the legion of 'do-gooders', who immediately spring to their defence at each and ever turn. They - the terrorists - know just how to the play the UK system to their best advantage, and do so time and time again. Forget what they have done/are about to do - anyone mentioning that affirmative action should be taken to remove them from our streets is immediately labelled a racist!
As for this latest moron. The police won't just have been shadowing him in the movie sense. All bases will have been covered. There will have been plain clothed (armed) specialist officers effectively surrounding him all the way. I'm not sure of why they would allow him to close on his target(?) but operational requirements in this particular instance would have dictated it.
He could have been arrested at any point after leaving his home address, and charged with exactly the same offences. That the police chose to 'follow' him may perhaps indicate that they thought he was about to meet up with some unknown associate who they also hoped to get into the bag. I'm only guessing of course, but when he closed on the PoW area, the decision was taken to interdict him before he could go any further.
As for popping these guys: you give them what you want, and they inspire others to do the same. Put them in jail to rot for the rest of their lives and they show others they might not end up in that 'heaven' of theirs and they take a real risk. It's the best one can do, since these idiots are as bad as humans can end up.
And after all, with the violence statistics of the US I don't envy them at all.
I noticed this just sailed by without comment on here. After people were stating factually that it was Muslim terrorists responsible when it fact it was a Capitalist terrorist happy to injure and kill people if it meant a few extra share points. An equally disgusting reason to attack people.
Incidentally, the statement that the actions of a minor few oughtn't to ignite a massive loathing of an entire people is correct but not completely applicable to the Muslim world, IMO. Most Muslims carry no direct guilt in these terrorist attacks but they do carry a moral responsibility. In many Muslim countries, some of the most conservative theocratic leaders are still "democratically" elected. The oppression and downright enslavement of women is still silently endorsed through the de facto practice of it in many households. Rarely do Muslim citizens rally up against a totalitarian Muslim regime. They don't fight ISIS or any other of those dimwitted groups unless their own (illusion of) freedom is threatened. And by persisting in teaching their children, and then their children, from the quran, and by condemning every socio-political step towards a more liberal and secular society, they practically create the proper framework for radicalism.
I would like to share with you this graph, one which like every other graph is true only in so far as it is.
link
I believe that ultimately this graph demonstrates one of the key problems. Many Muslims flee the disastrous conditions in their home countries, seeking a better life elsewhere. But the correlation between more wealth and secularism, at least from this graph, seems indisputable. I personally know many Muslim families who struggle with this. They want the best for their children and I, their teacher, do too. So naturally they deserve access to the best medical treatments in our hospitals, naturally they can have boyfriends and girlfriends and have pre-marital sex with them, naturally they can study sciences like evolutionary biology and astronomy and obviously when it's hot outside they can wear shorts and tiny skirts and t-shirts and tops and whatever have you... But that's not what their parents understand as "the best for them". And so illnesses are fought through prayer rather than the proper medical means, pre-arranged marriages still reign supreme, science contradicts the quran and therefore is admonished or even flat-out rejected and dismissed as the work of the devil; and hot or not, burkhas shall be worn and topless women shunned. Seeking to thrive on our wealth--and I'm not merely talking economical wealth--but refusing to adopt the more secular ways of our society, is precisely the cause of the breaking point for many confused and angered Muslims; it's what shepherds them into the clutches of warmongers who corrupt their minds and send them out as tools for a war which, despite all the bloodshed, is an a priori lost case. As long as the more moderate Muslims worldwide refuse to acknowledge that fact, they will either remain oppressed, and / or be co-responsible for the vile acts committed in the name of the made-up cosmic superbeing they all worship.
I find America's position on the graph rather interesting too I must say... But I've spoken--with contempt--about how things are going in the so-called Bible Belt before, so you'll forgive me for not pointing out the dangers of the more conservative American educational practices here.
My own country, Belgium, isn't even on the graph, probably because nobody bothered to check it out. ;-) Some sources claim it's the 6th wealthiest country in the world, but I'm neither necessarily convinced about that nor particularly interested in that right now. I would rather like to think that Belgium scores so low on the vertical axis that it would put even Japan to shame. ;-)
Why in this thread? It's about terrorism and such, isn't it? It's about what's wrong with the world, isn't it? Well, this is one of those things that are seriously wrong with the world.
So, the Irish want Stephen Fry convicted, a man who's full of love and is, ethically speaking, probably a better Christian than most self-proclaimed Christians. By the way, I say "the Irish" and I stick to that; perhaps only one crazy zealot cried wolf, but if the police are willing to take this seriously and if any judge or whatever actually convicts Fry over this, then Ireland is no better than a Muslim caliphate.
If anyone is to be convicted, it's those who teach their children to obey a being that doesn't exist, is full of hatred, and defies modern science--the only human activity based on actual empirical research and purified by honest peer evaluation, the continued search for refinement and the virtues of objectivity. Fry said nothing wrong nor insulting.
How can one be convicted for blasphemy I wonder? There is no god. How can one insult that which doesn't exist? Denying the existence of that which doesn't exist is... uh... logical. Perhaps the Irish need to read a book by Bertrand Russell some time. In it, one of history's most celebrated logicians logically demonstrates there can't be a god.
If the Irish deny the flying spaghetti monster, they can be convicted for blasphemy too? Seriously, if Fry is fined, I hope he gives Ireland the finger and I hope that smart, secular Irishmen rally against his conviction. Because this is no better than what is going on in the Middle-East. All this fuss because one stupid person prefers to be a slave to certain dogmas supported by a bunch of Italian virgins rather than to use nature's greatest gift to mankind: our brain.
Look, I'd scoff and laugh if there had only been the accusation from one loonatic and nothing more; but that the police are actually "investigating" this, is what makes me angry. Fry doesn't have to pay a fine nor openly apologise. Maybe the Catholics of the world haven't gotten over Fry's epic speech yet, during which he burns the Catholic Church to the ground with logic and reason:
It's irrelevant whether or not it's one loon complaining as its an actual law FFS:
'Under Ireland’s Defamation Act 2009 a person who publishes or utters blasphemous material “shall be guilty of an offence”. A conviction can lead to a fine of up to €25,000.'
2009!!! Not 1459!? This law was passed just 8 years ago! Jesus.
Frankly Fry is guilty according to the above and should be charged under this law. I'd love it if Stephen turned up to court to answer this and made the Irish look like the retarded yokels they clearly are for having this on the statute books.
Thank Christ for Brexit as being coupled with a country as backward as this would alone be enough for me to want out of the EU.
If Fry is fined, I'm hoping for some international incident to result from this!
Only a bunch of crazy, uneducated, pitchfork wielding madmen would accuse Stephen Fry of a crime. Wait, maybe it's because he's openly gay... Yes, the Catholic Church, institute of love and all that, considers gays lowlifes, sinners of the worst kind, and would probably have them burned at the stake if allowed.
Reminds me of the lunatic fatwa against Salman Rushdie, just not so extreme. Same motivations though, just different penalty.
Although I am a Christian I believe very much in freedom of speech and am therefore opposed to this law. The Irish themselves blaspheme on a daily basis - "Jaysus!" - so it is rather rich of them to try to prosecute Fry for it!
not a comedy, it's a documentary.
In fairness the guy might be a lone voice of sanity trying to expose the ludicrousness of such a law by forcing the police to investigate it.
I don't get this attitude. If you actually 'believe' then you have to go along with it all lock, stock and barrel don't you? The third commandment states 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vein' so if you're a signed up member how can you pick and choose? Surely Fry is a sinner and deserves to burn?
When religious zealots in church, on television, in public, ... call me a sinner for claiming (i.e. knowing) there is no god and condemn me to hell where eternal punishment and such await me, why can't I have them dragged to court? Why do I deserve to be hated? I don't care being called a sinner by the way. I am (proud to be) a sinner! I enjoy sex and I will openly dismiss religion as the greatest trap man has ever laid himself. Personally I don't care what a bunch of old, withered-down Italian virgins think of me; and if I'm called a sinner by the average American who, according to some sad statistics, likes to chase UFO's in the night's sky, ghosts in the attic and demons in the skirts of young girls, and who still votes for presidents who end every speech with "god bless America", I only feel better about my own proud enlightenment. I would never vote for someone who asks Santa to keep me safe at night... but hey, what do I know? Being rational, what has that ever got us, right?
Anyway, live and let live and all that and yes, fine, I can agree to disagree... But this incident with Stephen Fry once more demonstrates that Carl Sagan's THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD is a book everyone should read; and forget about the bible! Either way, Stephen Fry, I will support you, sir, now even more than ever. This means a great deal to me. That a country like Ireland dares to adopt such an archaic, foul and by all means criminal law, is beyond me. So if I wear my "Too stupid for science? Try religion" t-shirt in Ireland, will the Irish inquisition come and get me, toss me in a dungeon and crucify me? I mean, who voted for the politicians that came up with this law? Democracy? Matters of religion do not belong in a democracy; they belong in caliphates!
Gay Byrne's face on 0.45 is priceless.
Also if the EU condone this (which given it has stood since 2009 it would appear they have done) then they automatically lose all moral right to criticise any Muslim countries stoning someone to death for being gay or some such. Just a matter of degree.
s 36.— (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
37.— (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36 , the court may issue a warrant—
(a) authorising any member of the Garda Síochána to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein,
(b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Síochána of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person,
(c) specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Síochána.
(2) A member of the Garda Síochána may—
(a) enter and search any premises,
(b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person,
in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).
(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36 , anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Síochána in that behalf.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
From this it would appear that the Catholic Church is not even classed as a religion in Irish law then as the points are all applicable to the way it has operated since day one.
Although if we're talking Catholics they forgot:
(c) that systematically covers up child abuse crimes committed by its members.
For the record the police didn't even respond when the guy originally reported Fry. It wasn't until 18 months later that cogs started to turn.
A conviction seems highly unlikely. This seems to me to be a situation where someone is - jusifiably - testing the workability of a rather silly and outdated piece of legislation. So let's drop the hysterical rants against religion and the Irish.
Having said that. If the Irish case is actually about challenging the Irish blasphemy laws then the anti religion types on here should actually be welcoming this case.
In a sense I am very pleased with this case except that it can go two ways. Some other zealots might get ideas now.
Outdated? Not according to the Irish. This isn't something that is hangover from the Middle Ages that no one has thought to strike off the statute books - it was brought in in 2009 FFS!! So I would say hysterical rants against the Irish are justified frankly.
It would great if Fry decided to push this and turned himself in at a police station and forced them to confront the situation. He'd get 25,000 donated in minutes to cover his fine. If these morons are going to bring in such a law then they can't just ignore it when someone breaks it. Would be great to see Fry conducting his own defence and making a mockery of the Irish court. These people need ridiculing and Fry has the public profile to do it.