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 refugee and immigration thing is another one. ISIL has already said that it will infiltrate that pool, so common sense would suggest that this is an area that should be very closely monitored.
Furthermore, I didn't think Europe was doing all that well at the moment economically. It's hardly the time to be accepting boatloads of refugees, despite humanitarian considerations imho. Far more beneficial to try to find ways to solve the problem at its source, via coordinated diplomacy and engagement (even if it means some loss of face). 7 years later and Assad is still in power. What really was won here and at what cost?
Funny you ask that only days after one of these guys killed a protester by running his car into a protst march.
This isn't a dick comparison contest, I'm not interested in who committed the most violence, I'm only countering the notion that only Muslim extremists are responsible for attacks and Islam is the only religion with extremism or apologists. I've seen radical Jews on tv in those settlements that it was their right to take over the land from Palestinians because it was 'the right of the strongest'. I wonder if they'd had the guts to say that to the Nazis'.
Religious extremism is wrong in any way, shape or form. Blaming all Muslims for terror attacks or the lack of denouncing them is a very one-sided way of looking at it, and will do more harm then good. But it's easy of course, it makes the world 'good- bad', and that's what we all like. Playing into the hands of these extremists who want us to be at war with all Muslims.
Well I'm not going to attack my collegues for their religion. I'm not inclined to invade Malaisia because 95% of Malay follow (their form of) Islam. The problem is middle eastern, and those pointing to Sumatra haven't got a clue what they're talking about, as that Island has had it's indepence wars for the last 500 odd years.
It's the oil countries in the middle east, where sheiks depress their own people and give them the West as the Evil Empire whilst still selling the oil to the same empire fascillitating their luxury lifestyle. And it's us thinking oil dollars are more important than human rights still buying the stuff from countries like Iraque, Saudia Arabia, Syria, etc.
Preachers there use ancient texts to gain power, and that only works if you can point to an enemy. And they can as we live in a way that breaks just about every rule in their ancient texts. So what do we do? We buy their oil and sell them our weapons for their local power struggles, financing and harboring extremism.
It isn't that difficult to stop. Just stop buying their oil, block trade until thay manage to treat their citizens right. But no, we do that to North Korea, not to our friends the beheading Saudi's. For human rights in NK are completely different then those in SA.
Some Americans might. Again, I was pointing out the flaw in reasoning, not saying the KKK is a world-wide phenomenon. Nor is radical islam, it just so happens they're fighting the West, and we happen to BE the West (Spain included).
This is entirely the fault of the regressive left. As evidenced here on occasion, it is completely unacceptable to criticise Islam.
Maajid Nawaz, author of 'Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism' sums up the situation rather succinctly, describing "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in the United Kingdom who naïvely and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. Nawaz elaborates, saying that "a section of the left" has "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities ... for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles"
If someone from the KKK drove into a crowd tomorrow and killed 50 or more, how does that have any impact re the issue we have re extreme Islam? How does it help? No matter what issues with have with other groups around the World, it in no way changes the issue we have re Islamic terror. It in no way alters both the facts re how many have been killed and injured in the name of Islam or the emotional impact on the relatives and friends of the victims.
And, in some way, it almost seeks to play down the issue. In the same way the parent of a bully would say, "well he's not the only bully in the school", perhaps not but that observation does not help in any way. It just seeks to detract from the issue/conversation.
Terrorism aside for a moment. Regressive leftism is the reason that the child sex scandals in Rotherham and elsewhere was allowed to continue for so long. For those not aware, the cases I refer to was the organised sexual abuse of young girls by Muslim men which was conducted on an industrial scale. This was known about for many years but never acted upon by the authorities, for the simple fact that they were scared to investigate fully for fear of being branded racist. In the meantime, thousands of vulnerable children were raped and physically abused. Even now, no one in authority is allowed to voice an opinion on the matter (Sarah Champion anyone?).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4282450/rochdale-sex-abuse-cop-says-sacking-of-race-row-mp-sarah-champion-means-potential-whistleblowers-will-fear-losing-their-jobs/
I can say with certainty, that had these abuse rings been organised by Christians or athiests, then the full force of the law would have been applied in the very first instance of the authorities getting wind of it.
Still, better to sacrifice children for the sake of community cohesion hey chaps? Also better to sacrifice civilians for the same reason? Keep calm and carry on!
How long has that taken and how much sexual abuse done by people working for the Catholic church has been really prosecuted or swept under the carpet by the Christian community?
Somehow I sense somebody rewriting current and millennia old history.
You do have a very valid point about the church. Not a case of revisionism but a very valid point which I obviously missed. A pervert is a pervert in my book and I have little doubt that this type of behaviour will also extend to the upper echelons of power. I was, however, speaking about street gangs.
What are your viewpoints on the Rotherham (and other towns) scandals? The church wields much power and influence, they can engineer circumstances whereby they evade justice from within. That's how they got (get) away with it. I stand to be corrected, but don't think that much of what happened in the church was an open secret as it was with the Muslim grooming gangs? Those within the church would know, but not the police. That being the case, please explain the reason for the turning a blind eye to Rotherham? Why were the perpetrators passively aided and abetted by the authorities when this situation was known about for so long?
I am quite sure that there has been some sacking and turning blind eyes on abuse situations only the church has had some serious power and still does, their department in charge of such offenses and formerly in charge of Inquisition {during the second millennium of the church] does know how to do so quietly and effective. They had quite a lot of time to perfect this.
Not taking away that this ought be despised at any moment dome by any religious undertaking.
I think that if you look in our recent history you will find a lot of situations where officials looked the other way or decided to not act in somebody importants interest.
And indeed a pervert is a pervert not depending on his political or religious background.
His antics were quite well known by member of the right and the left political persuasion. One can only wonder why nobody ever did something about it.
Remember we are not talking about someone important here - we are speaking about street gangs of Muslim men. Had these gangs been comprised white (Christians/athiests/Jeddi's or whomever) men, then swift and decisive action would have been taken by the police to smash the networks and bring the offenders to justice.
So, why were these gangs allowed to continue while the authorities looked the other way? I think it's for the same reason as they fail to confront Islamic extremism and terrorism. Again, look at what happened to Sarah Champion. If she gets sacked for speaking out about criminal activity of the most vile nature (and no one can argue she was not telling the truth) then how are we as a nation supposed to confront the problem of Islamist terrorism?
They really must be laughing at us and our precious 'values'.
I think that there is a genuine chance that if the establishment fail to come to terms with the situation, then the issue will be pushed further to the right. (as with Trump). The public have been incredibly patient but there only so many candles you can light, only so many charity concerts, only so many buildings to light up and only so many "Praying for (insert whatever city has been attacked) messages on Facebook.
We should also consider that it was only the incompetence of these latest guys that prevented a much bigger attack (rather than expert policing or intel from within the community). The gas bottle method clearly is a risky plan. Left unchecked, they will become more expert and more dangerous.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/20/hate-crimes-online-abusers-prosecutors-serious-crackdown-internet-face-to-face
The key phrase:
"The definition of hate crime, recognised by the CPS and police, is “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”
So no actual tangible crime needs to have been committed or evidence produced just somebody deciding to perceive something as offensive.
"There are crucial provisions in law to ensure we do not stifle free speech, an important right in our society. Hate is hate, however"
And as you've just defined hate as being somebody's own personal opinion whether or not they are offended about something said as part of an individual's right to free speech then said right has the potential to be eroded to the point of being meaningless.
So any of us here criticising Islam, or indeed any religion, can be found guilty of a crime if somebody decides that we are exhibiting hostility to Islam and thus takes offence.
Christ if I even say 'I think DAD is utter shite and anyone who thinks otherwise is a lobotomised cretin' I can be arrested (as long as there is someone out there prepared to front up at a police station and say 'I am a lobotomised cretin and I like DAD and I found that comment offensive.')
And just before you think this is just the lefty Guardian doing their usual schtick take a look at who is writing this; yep the DPP herself.
Of course racial or homophobic abuse on twitter and the like can and does cross the line of being acceptable under free speech but when legal decisions are being made on the whim of somebody choosing to be offended or not you end up with a country which is, to pick one completely random example out of thin air, terrified to reproduce a cartoon of a man with a beard in any media because not only are they scared of mob rule violence but also because the law protects said mob as their right to be 'offended' is now the most sacrosanct right of all in a modern liberal society.
How long before it supersedes the right to life itself and we get a story where someone who was offended murders someone and the court let's him go because the victim really shouldn't have had the temerity to criticise his religion?
I think you may have not interpretted this incorrectly:
“any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”
You still need to have a criminal offence in the first place but its the motivation which depends on whether its defined as hate crime. Its pretty meaningless as I cant see how you can murder someone or attack them without being hostile so automatically, all murders/attacks become hate crime?
"So what happened?"
"He punched me in the face?"
"Do you perceive that as hostile?"
Duh?
Fair point.
But if an actual crime has been committed then the law can simply deal with it as usual and all this is redundant then isn't it?
Or is throwing acid in someone's face with hate as your motive more serious than doing it to nick their phone?
As the CPS have changed their policy, you can expect "hate crime doubles" headlines next year.
What's going on in Britain when it comes to this PC stuff and protecting criminals because of their religion is beyond me. For me there should be a strict devision between state and church (whichever one) and no rule should ever be made because someone might feel offended. We're all equal in our rights, end of story.
At the same time, the rules proposed would protect gay- and others (sorry, I lost count with all those letters) were attacked by muslims because of their preferences, right? Or is it a one-way street again?
That thing about beeing muslim and not beeing able to get that in line with western values is utter rubbish though, I know many muslims who can and again, go to Malaysia, Java, Singapore or even the US and you'll find there are millions who don't have a problem whatsoever to incorporate modern life into their muslim belief and vice versa.
I know, beeing nuanced and knowing exactly who you're fighting against isn't lovely cowboy stuff, it's more fun to blow everyone away in a blaze of gory, eh, sorry, glory.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/suspected-driver-barcelona-attack-killed-13-identified-still-123104502--abc-news-topstories.html
First one cop shoots 4 dead on the spot, and now this?!
When are they going to start taking the tough action that's required?
A van containing gas canisters has been discovered near a music venue in Rotterdam, hours after a tip-off from Spanish police led to the cancellation of a rock concert.
Let us all hope that those poor misunderstood freedom fighters (I won't say terrorists because that is politically incorrect and may cause offence) didn't injure themselves in any way during their mission to plant these devices (is bomb the appropriate word? Or does it sound too aggressive?).
KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON!
Together with information from the Spanish Police and information that was spread by an individual in this country (Netherlands) the police had to cancel the concert. Police speak of a 'very alarming message' and the person has been arrested and will be helt accounteable.
For those of you who understand Dutch:
http://www.nu.nl/terrorisme-in-europa/4892969/verdachte-brabant-verspreidde-bericht-dreiging-bij-maassilo-.html
Seems like the police were on their game this time.
Nice to be reminded that God is still in fact great.