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
Yes, absolutely. I did not take his prescriptions literally. However I did read between the lines and take from it what made sense.
Regardless of what may or may not have been the intentions of the EU, the bottom line is Ukraine is a divided cleft state (that is a fact) and trying to pull it closer to the EU for economic reasons and selfishness was bound to antagonize the eastern half of the country (who feel much closer to Russia) and Russia itself.
Suggesting that Islam is to blame for the attacks (which many in Western media are doing) without trying to refine the discussion to focus on the radical element only, will also serve to antagonize the peaceful contingent and further divide along cultural lines. I took that from the book as well and it's happening and getting worse - it has done since 911.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that the 'west' tends to vote down cultural lines in the Security Council. It just happens to coincide with political (for that read cultural - i.e. democracy) & power intentions. It happens too many times to be coincidental. That is why certain members are doing whatever they can to ensure that India and Brazil (both large democracies - India being the world's largest in terms of population) do not get permanent security council seats. The dynamic will shift dramatically.
I am so much more aware of cultural divides now that I was before reading the book. I grew up in a multi-cultural society, so I was amazed at how others who did not may identify personally and subconciously. Having read the book, I realize these cultural distinctions now (as I said, I can hear it in the debate on this very thread by some members).
But no, I don't agree with his views or suggestions. I do recommend the book though.
After 9/11 they almost bankrupted a shed load of countries due to unaffordable conflicts that made a bigger mess of a situation that was most certainly one to keep our western world out of. I would say that the fundamentalists have won so far, every time we respond in a way that is mostly OTT we end looking like aggressors, and the folks of the opposite party do thank us a lot.
Frances response to the Charliehebdo so far has been pretty good, I am sure not what was expected or aimed at by the parties that planned this massacre.
the struggle in the middle east is simply about power, dominance of people and monetary reasons, religion is a tool and a means to achieve that. Frank Herbert used a similar them in his Dune novels.
Thanks. I'll definitely check these books out. Agreed, it is a power grab, with duplicity and deception as a tool. I've always felt the Afghanistan presence had a secondary objective to geopolitically block that area from being a bigger trading conduit for Russia/India/Iran/Other Middle East etc. (regardless of what the original intention was). There is no other reason for pissing about there for 12 years.
It always worries me to hear the US Congress and Senate (and particularly guys like John Mcain - who I really think sees himself as John Mclaine) put forward simplistic, politically expedient arguments not based in fact but rather in rhetoric.
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
[info][add][mail][note]Mahatma Gandhi
- More quotations on: [Forgiveness]
So much killing due to forgiveness...
Chilling
Well, Charlie Hebdo were atheists, and you keep seeing only the covers related to Islam, but there was far far more covers related to French politics (about 90% of the covers I'd say).
But if you take atheism into account, what are the countries where being atheist can mean legally death penalty :
Afghanistan, Iran, la Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, U.A.E. and Yemen.
Of course, I've been told that I should never talk about being an atheist while in the US for instance, that it was super weird there (while here its a bit the other way round), but the death penalty in the US doesn't apply yet to being an atheist.
And well, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Yemen.. don't tell me the economy is an important factor.
Wrong. I have never said Charlie Hebdo covers only related to Islam. I am not even talking about Charlie Hebdo any more (and rarely have been as I mentioned to you before). My comments earlier were regarding Islam and religion in general and the way they are being demonized by some elements in Western media (I am not talking about a satirical magazine now - I am talking about so called legitimate news reporting media). That is wrong and it is only creating the grounds for more mistrust and even more violence.
Yes, it may be a strict religion. It's their country and their laws, and their problem for all I care. I'm not judging them, just like I'm not judging why the US has a death penalty in some states. I think both instances are stupid myself (particularly the US that is supposed to be setting the example for the rest of the so called free world) but it's their country.
The countries you mention above are all repressive monarchies. The wealth they have primarily goes to the ruling families to exert control. As I've said before, in Saudi Arabia you get your hand cut off for doing something illegal. That is the country, ruled by House of Saud and which is home to the extremist violent Wahhabi religious paradigm, that is the root of most of the problems within Islam, and which has manipulated the Arab world to its own benefit through an intricate web of financial, political and religious patronage. They are also the primary provider of cheap oil to prop up Western economies, and as we speak are responsible for crashing the world oil price to prop up the US petro $ (which will actually put a lot of companies out of business in the US/Canada at the expense of the Middle East). An inconvenient truth, which is why Saudi Arabia is not discussed so much in corporate owned Western media (again, I am not referring to a satirical magazine but legitimate news media). They should be called to task for their involvement in this problem.
I don't see this problem in Indonesia (with the largest population of Muslims) or in India (with the 2nd largest population of Muslims). Both are democracies. I see this problem primarily in the Arab (notice I am not saying Iran - because Iran has shown no violence, yet) Middle East countries ruled by dictators/monarchs and in Pakistan (also ruled by dictators and the military for most of its existence). Both have been propped up by outside Western funding and military investment.
As I said above, it the combination of education, culture and economics that play a part. Religion is also a factor. It is not the only factor
As an example, black people are more likely to be arrested (and more likely to be criminally charged) in the US than white people. That is an economic (in the sense that they have poorer paying jobs and live in poorer locations), cultural (in the sense that they may be perceived to be criminals by the police - and are more likely to feel marginalized by society) and educational (they have have worse education as a % of the population) problem. Their problem is not religious, but it is a combination of cultural, economic and education. The feeling of marginalization, which can be cultural, is critical. If someone feels marginalized then they are less likely to feel a part of broader society, and are more likely to be influenced by dark forces.
Let's be crystal clear. I'm not defending that religion (Islam) or its way of life. However, I'm not so quick as some on this thread and elsewhere to condemn it outright either. It has been hijacked, as I've said before, by a few violent nutters. I think it's important not to further annoy or marginalize the rest of the Muslims who are not killers but who may still feel isolated and marginalized due to the actions of a few nutcases.
But then, once again, when economics appear when you discuss about terrorism, it's about people who are.... really not very poor. Which is the exact opposite of what you write about black people in the US :
In the meantime, as for the 9/11 terrorists in the US, terrorists that hit on the French ground did not have the poorer paying jobs, did not live in the poorer locations, they were not to be found in Romany camps. They did not live in the street, they had incomes, they could pay for trips to prepare and train, etc, etc.
For instance, if the info from the media is correct, the author of the antisemitic attack in the last crisis earned about 2500/3000E per month (3.000 / 3.500 dollars). How do we know what, well because it appears that to buy many part of his hardware for the terrorist acts, he simply asked his bank for a loan, and the French media gave all the details of the loan. He had a loan of 6000E (about 7.000 dollars) with no problem, given his income. His first monthly payment should have been on the week of the attack. This is everyday life turning into something surreal.
Notice that another contributor here who also thinks economics is an important factor in becoming a terrorist, simply stated that France had some of the highest youth unemployment rate in Europe. It's wrong, but it's not related anyway IMO. Frankly, if one is able to turn into a one-man army able to outrun the police for hours or days, or able to fly a plane into a building, etc.. one is probably not someone who used to live under a bridge for 10 years with a poor health condition before "waking up" and saying "f... this country, I'm gonna be a terrorist."
So, well, you've got no reason to do petty crimes when you're rich, which is why "economics" is said to "explain" some things about crimes, "ok". But forget all this when dealing with terrorism, which is caused by something that comes from the brain, not from some stomach that is hungry.
Yes, but the countries from which most (I'm not referring to the recent attacks in France) of the terrorism is originating are monarchies and dictatorships. Not exactly the poster child for economic prosperity for the masses. Their populations do not have the freedoms that we have in the west. They don't have the economic opportunities either. They are repressed.
As I said, terrorists do not originate from the countries with by far the largest muslim populations (Indonesia, India & Bangladesh - together making up 33% of the global muslim population).
Re: you point about the killers (again not referring to France but general radical Islam attacks) not being poor. The killers themselves may not be poor, but they may in fact sympathize with the poor or the marginalized or the oppressed. So it is cultural as well (my point above that there are a combination of factors, not just economic, but also cultural, religious & educational). It is how the killers identify and what they identify with, rather than their own personal circumstances. Bin Laden was rich, but he sympathized with the plight of the poor who he believed were being oppressed by the Monarchies who in turn were funded by the West who needed the oil.
Note the people who came out to march in the US for the shot teenager recently. Many were not poor - but they came out to sympathize with the youngster, who was poor.
I stand by my point that this argument is not purely religious. It is a combination of religion with economic, cultural and educational.
At the end of the day, there is absolutely no excuse for murder. My point is it's important not to create more future murderers by sowing the seeds of further mistrust and marginalization by demonizing an entire religion. I think that's common sense.
See why I compare those who want to explain everything with economics, to psychoanalysis.
First, a general theory is explained, so coherent you can't refute it per se. But if an actual example does not work...
"Autism is caused by the lack of love from the mother"
"But... my wife loves my son !"
"Hmmm.. your son is an autist, because he identified himself with the little dog who bite your wife and who was kicked by her one day.."
Economics and Psychoanalysis are never wrong, never...
You've just explained if that anywhere on the planet, there's some poor guy left that someone can identify with, then this someone can become a terrorist. And well, imagine someone who identify with someone who was oppressed in the past... There's nothing you can do.
I disagree : IMO to most people, for instance, wanting to kill Jews now because "they killed Jesus" is plain old irrational religious belief, not some thoughtful analysis of the economics of Middle-East 2000 years ago that creates a feeling of identification with the first Catholics.
The killers are the killers. People are killed every day, including from time to time in theatres and schools in the US and in Europe (Anders Breivik). Islam and religion had nothing to do with that.
I am more concerned with preventing tomorrow's killers and not giving people cause to sympathize with them. Muslim marginalization is a current phenomenon. It is not from 2000 years ago. The vast majority of muslims don't deserve that marginalization.
As I said before, by way of example, I'm not going to apologize for the crimes of men, even though the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. I don't want to be blamed for the crimes of men by way of generalization and oversimplification, and neither should you.
X_X
What do you mean? The fact that "God is forgiving" is one of the central aspects of both Christianity and Islam. Indeed the New Testament is almost entirely derived from that idea. There are also religious texts that contradict this idea of course, and sadly not all religious people embrace this line of thinking. But to claim it has "nothing to do with religion"? Are you serious?
True. Anyone who does not submit to their bloodthirsty god (islam means submission) must die.Any one who stands in the way of islamic expansion is guilty. It is as simple as that. Why overanalyse something so simple?
How the bastards became so ignorant and easily duped is another debate, sure. One thing is certain, respect is not the answer. respecting absurdities and satanic evil will only encourage more of the same. As for the "moderate" muslims (or christians or jews for that matter), they do not know their own religious texts very well. This would indeed be a stupid thing to say if I had not read them myself. How many of you apologizing parrots have actually done so?
A Christian. I pointed out some of the things he wasn't doing, which
According to his religion he really should as it's in the rules of his
Chosen way of life. He didn't know anything about them ! :))
To give a few ideas here's a couple
Anyone who works on a sunday, is to be Killed
Unmarried mothers ( living at home) , to be killed
Not to be with women during their mensuration
That sort of thing ( these are real rules) yet most
Christians only bother with the anti gay stuff. :))
Hm, you never answered about a point I think is major : today, do economics explain antisemitism, really ? Somehow, if somewhere in the explanation, one says it's the poor against the rich, then this is more like excusing it than trying to understand it, no ?
Don't worry, all religion protect men. If you were a woman, maybe you would have a different opinion of it. But maybe you think sexism is caused by economics too ? :)
Anyway, those who see no problems in drawing Mahomet are being blamed at the moment. And as I see no problems in it either, I'm being blamed too then.
Surreal moment at Sky News, the camera goes up to avoid to show the drawing, and then the interview is cut.
I guess many viewers will think the drawing is offensive, then ? I recall it's a drawing of Mohamet crying that people are killing in his name. And now they're afraid of it as if it was hate speech. What next ? No pig in the kid books ? Oh wait, it did happen, Oxford University Press wrote so..
Well you are simplifying what a religion is by reducing it to the sacred text/texts and the 'Word'. This is a very Protestant and Wahabiist Islam view of religion - everything is reduced to words on a page. Extremist Protestants in the US take the view that the Bible is the word of god, and that it literally spells out what Christianity means. They are predictably enthusiastic about the parts that focus on proscribing stuff - like sodomy - but tend to pay less attention to the other stuff about giving up all your money and worldly possessions. For some reason they always find ways to not take the bit about the eye of a needle literally as well. Any way, the same goes for Wahabiists - they focus on the written word but are also similarly selective in what they choose to interpret literally.
The history of religious practice, theology and culture is far more diverse and interesting. Christian and Islamic scholars have traditionally seen the Bible and Koran as texts that require intelligent discussion, debate and interpretation. Man has to interpret the word and the true meaning must be teased out and applied appropriately to changing contexts. Islam used to be a rather adaptive and inquisitive religion but has become intellectually and culturally moribund and dead.
However, the origins of much Western philosophical and scientific thought rests on the once mighty world of Islamic scholarship.
What I'm trying to say is that religions are much more about culture and tradition than one book, interpretations of which change over time. The loons now interpret the Koran literally in a way that a lot of more enlightened scholars in the past had already moved beyond.
Any way, amazing this thread is still going and has not been closed down. We are all living proof that diversity and tolerance works. If an eclectic group that includes such extremely different human belief systems as Moorites, Daltonistas and Brozzers without killing each other, can all get along then there is hope for the world yet.
Atheists in the US is the most important minority. And they are very vocal nowadays (and rightly so imo).
But yes, I agree that trying to explain such obscurantist act with economic points is coa bunch of mpletely off track. CH was not exactly Western capitalist explorers.
Forgiveness existed in humans (and other species) way before religion came along and exists within atheists. Religion is a man made control mechanism and those who created it drew up rules of good behavior based on a combination of common sense and what suited them at the time (nothing in the ten commandments about rape for example). Forgiveness existed and exists outside of religion. Thats what I was trying to say.
With gas tanks in the back of the car ( possible car bomb ) and
Several other fires all seem to be timed together.
I wonder if this is a taste of what's to be directed at the UK .
Are you referring to the existence of God or the fire? :-)
Conclusions, but given the past week. I don't think it's too outlandish
An idea.
-cultural
-educational
-economic
-religious
It's not just one of the above but all of them.
The killers sympathize culturally with the Muslim community in general. They are not that well educated most likely (all these guys were killed - can they really be that educated and smart?), they may be economically well off (I'm not sure) but they sure sympathize with the downtrodden among their bretheren & they have their religion in common.
@Suivez_ce_parachute, no I don't think economics explains antisemitism. That is a long discussion I'm not going to get into today, but if you don't understand why certain muslims globally are livid with Israel then I don't know what to say to you. There is absolutely no excuse for certain lunatic muslims to take that out on peaceful jewish shoppers in Paris (as I said there is no excuse for murder, period) but there certainly is a context for their misguided hatred and it does not go back 2000 years as you suggest - it is current. They relate and identify with people of similar culture and religion that have been persecuted and killed elsewhere recently, and are taking their own brand of revenge due to limited educational (can these killers really be educated when they themselves were all killed?) capacity.
I'm not sympathizing with these lunatics, but I'm trying to understand the context for their hatred, and it's not purely religious and it's not just because they hate the western way of life. That's a gross oversimplification for an explanation that is convenient but lazy. That's like saying the holocaust (which was not done by muslims) was perpetrated due to and by religion. It was not.