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 quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.
I don't think it's fair to just beat up on the US for its imperialist adventures. The French and British were historically as bad, if not worse, and continue to do very silly things - like creating chaos in Libya.
But the meaning was essentially the same. Wether it is "believing in a proposition" or just "believing".
I think it is a by product of republicanism. With it came secularism. France is not always inclusive, but it certainly gives room to inclusion. All faiths are seen with the same amount of healthy skepticism, which helps. And many Muslim families came to France to avoid religious wars or religious oppression, so they don't take kindly to religious fanaticism, especially of the Islamic kind. One of a friends of a Facebook friend is French Algerian, and she was furious about the attacks, not only because of the vile act itself, but because her parents left Algeria to escape from religious zealots.
This made the presence Sunday of the King of Jordon particularly brave as he is risking alienating a sizable portion of his population. Sadly, it is obvious that many moderate Muslims are terrified about speaking out. It was a good sign that many Muslims participated in Sunday's event. One of the major excuses for the increasing slaughters in Europe is that young Muslim men living in poverty are driven to terrorism out of economic desperation. What of the radical Islamic killings taking place all over the globe and not just in Europe. What about the slaughter of Christians in Iraq. What about the horrible slaughter in Syria. The mall slaughter in Africa. Explain Bin Laden? He was a millionaire. His family are billionaires. Some of the 9/11 terrorists were well educated, middle class and did not live in poverty in the west. This is a hell of a lot more complex than economic issues in No Go Zones, or the Iraq war, or Israel. These issues just go back decades. Root conflicts in the Islamic world go back centuries..
The argument that these poor Muslims are unwillingly isolated is weak. In America, Hispanic and Asian immigrants want to assimilate. They want to be Americans. The huge problem in Europe, is that large elements of these Muslim populations do not want to assimilate. They do not want any part of western culture or western law. They want to impose Shariah law. It's fine when it is imposed locally in their neighborhoods and only within their population. But when Sharia law, and the way extreme elements interpret it, conflicts with the laws and culture of the host country they have immigrated to, we are in for some increasingly dangerous conflicts.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press, no matter how offensive to some, are the very bed rock of western culture. Attack that, and you kill freedom. You start to make allowances for cultural sensitivities and where does it stop. These radical Islamic attacks are taking place all over the world. It is not just about the press, and cartoons. They are kidnapping and killing girls who want an education, they are killing school children in Pakistan. They are killing off ancient Christian sects in Iraq. Where are the nasty cartoons and "No Go Zones" causing these killings in non western countries? There is a ton of hypocrisy on the left when they try to defend and explain these attacks by Islamic radical factions that are violently opposed to everything the left is supposed to stand for.
Therefore it may in fact not be fully compatible with a secular society, if one takes it literally.
Again, I'm not sure, but this is what I'm being led to believe from talking with people.
Perhaps it is in fact not possible to be a 'good' Muslim in the strictest sense and live in an integrated fashion within a secular, modern society. I don't know, but I'm throwing this out there.
No it was not. Read his post. The meme was slander, plain and simple. And Aslan's accusation as stupid as it was vile.
Like the recent wars in the middle east and the far east, it could have used some restraint and some smarter people at the helm, a book like Ghost wars by Steven Coll is scary to read. Like the books by Ahmed Rashid on Jihadis and Taliban they are essentially eye openers that will make you approach the subject more informed.
As for the imperialist adventures of all colonial nations, they could have done a much better job instead of the rush job they did when leaving. The US is not alone in its messing up, the west is pretty good at it in their allied form.
If you take out the autocratic leader like in the case of Libya or even if the leader is taken out from within like in Egypt, you cannot expect a secular democracy to just flourish immediately. Either you get a theocracy, like what happened in Egypt with Morsi, or you get another dictator, again like what happened in Egypt post-Morsi
There is a wrenching adjustment process that may take decades even. Eventually democracy will take root, but only in time. In the meanwhile, there is a void, and radical Islam/ideologies and hatred can take hold as people don't have opportunities.
Very good point. As you note, it takes decades and almost ideal conditions for democracy to take root. These Middle Eastern countries have so many conflicting factions and historically, many of them had western colonial countries drawing artificial bounderies that often did not reflect the populations within, and a host of other problems. So you wind up with a country like Iraq with three factions at each other's throats, and only a strong man like Hussein keeping the country together. No wonder Bush Senior didn't want to enter Bagdad after the first Iraq war.
You're absolutely right. Good point re: the artificial boundaries too.
What worries me is once the strong man is taken out (as was the case with Hussein) and the vacuum is created (since democracy was not allowed to take root organically, but rather was forced from the top down) then you have an opening for the likes of ISIL to come in and spread its poisonous and extreme brand of Islam.
That's why the US and the west have no choice now. They created this mess by toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq without a proper backup plan and a naive hope of democrary flourishing. Now they have to stop ISIL taking a stronghold, because they are trying to create a theocracy for the whole of the middle east and not just Iraq/Syria. It's easy for them because Sunni Islam is the one thing holding the place together (as you said, the boundaries were always artificial). The other demarcation of course is Shia/Sunni
And to those who claim that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, its a pity they dont have web cams in Saudi Arabia so we could all watch the regular public floggings handed out by the Islamic government as punishment for insulting Islam.
Did I say I was talking about anyone here?
I'm pretty sure I also differentiated between kindly and harmless religious people and fundamentalists:
Yep there it is. But don't let me stop you from censoring someone's post to make your point in a debate about freedom of speech. Who's hilarious?
Anyway I don't know where you live but anyone from the UK will recognise this as barely satire it is so worryingly close to the truth in this country:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443
And was proven to be bang on the money by this contemptible moment from the BBC:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/09/bbc-muhummad-charlie-hebdo-question-time_n_6444182.html
Yes, good point about the concept of the "strong man." It is almost the only hope in these countries. It seems the best they can do is have a benevolent strong man like Sadat, early Moubourak or Jordon's king. Not sure, but I think Hussein early on was quite moderate, secular, and opposed to the radical Islamist faction. It's tragic that he became more corrupt, invaded Kuwait etc. I always remember Colin Powell's famous warning to Bush about Iraq, "You break it, you own it." How right he was. Its tragic he didn't run for President, as its always been my .02 that he was vastly more qualified than any US President in decades.
Very true. He also unfortunately completely discredited himself when he went to the UN and talked about the smoking gun etc. I know he really regrets that moment and wishes he could take it back. He was a loyal soldier to the end.
If only more governments would consider the Powell Doctrine (itself a variant and refinement of Sun Tzu's seminal "The Art of War") before getting entangled in overseas messes, things would be much better for all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
Quite. Lets not forget the insane Jehovahs who prefer to let their kids die than give them life saving medical treatment.
Non religious parents would be had up for child abuse if they did this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion
How is a judge allowed to ride roughshod over their beliefs by the way? I thought it was one of your inviolable human rights that your religion has to be respected however mental (or unless its Jedi because thats just taking the piss apparently) so the child should have been left to die. These parents have had their religious rights impinged. Disgraceful.
Correct me if Im wrong but I cant remember any "fuss" over this. Times have really changed, used to love NTNON,
Well, do you think Romany camps in France are the place where terrorists are the most easily found ? They are the people who are really at the lowest level of consideration here, far, far below other categories. They're at such a low level here that recently the mayor of a town refused to allow a Romany family to bury their baby in his town.
Guess what, if a Romany camp arrive somewhere, some people will fear burglaries will happen.. but will anyone fear for their life ? Not at all.
I think that such economic analysis is really dated from the beginning of mass unemployment in the 1970s. It was new at the time, so many people thought it would explain every change...
BTW, FYI, youth unemployment in France (22.5%) is in the average of Europe Union (22.2%). But facts come second to theory I guess :)
Not blaming the victims is a good start IMO. And I didn't hear much shouts in the Parisian crowd on Sunday. But I'm sure you can find in the next days for example some red paint thrown on a Muslim woman by dozens of narrow-minded people somewhere, that will allow the relativists to claim French society is to blame for everything that happened.
"Funnily" enough, I found that often, the same person that explains that "being poor" "explains" why you can become a terrorist, doesn't want to allow other to explain that "being poor" can explain why you can become racist. IMO the relativism is so strong amongst some intellectuals, that they prefer to blame racists who just shout with no sign of intelligence, and to excuse racist who kills in the name of some intellectual concepts. "At least they have a reason to do it"...
Well, should we continue to publish caricatures of Mahomet or not, then ? Some use these caricatures to explain it carries "hate", and that the attack was then a "retribution" of which the victims are to "blame" partially because they published caricatures.
Charlie-Hebdo's next issue will feature Mahomet on the front page...
"All is forgiven" - Mahomet crying with a sign "I am Charlie". It doesn't depict him in a bad light, does it ? But a cartoonist drew him, and some think you can kill him for that. I don't know the solution, but IMO the problem is in the last sentence, not in some macro-analysis that fail to explain anything, that exists just because it is coherent and fuzzy enough in order to avoid to be debunked neatly, just like Freudian psychoanalysis.
I think some people are addicted to simplistic explanations to avoid to say "We don't know". IMO, the economic argument is as simplistic as the argument according to which Muslims are evil. Note that both explanations allow people to blame others...
Anyway, I see that no one here dared to explain the antisemitic murders the next days in Paris by the same "economic" explanation.. and yet "I killed Charlie because they drew caricatures" is IMO exactly like "I killed Jews because they killed Jesus" and other stuff like that that are the basis of the antisemitic subculture : some intellectualisation of hate, that prevent some other intellectuals to see it's just irrational hate.
Since a lot here have talked about Charlie Hebdo without knowing them, I tried to found a subtitled documentary about them while they were making an issue with Mahomet on the cover a few years ago. Guess what I found it on some UK or US site, an excerpt from "It's hard being loved by jerks", by Daniel Leconte, but I just can't find it again in my bookmarks or history.. Too bad. I think anyone describing them as Muslim haters should really try to watch that.
Finally, here's IMO one the best cartoons that was made during the crisis. IMO, it reminds every relativist of the difference between a cartoon and a murder.
"If you don't surrender, our elite cartoonist will draw a caricature of the prophet !". Yes it was made during the hostage crisis...
Not sure about this part, but reports include sending 10 year old girls in a marketplace strapped with bombs and detonated remotely. If that is the case, that is one the most disgusting acts seen in our lifetimes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
This is an uncomfortable, but truthful look at the fight for hearts and minds between moderate British Mulims and a growing strain of puritanical Islam.
It was reassuring to hear moderate Muslims speak out against this form of Islam, and particularly gratifying to hear them reject the Muslim grievance narrative. None raised events from many years ago in an attempt to find false moral equivalence. Neither did any point the finger at other religions or religion generally. Western democracy and values were supported. No one blamed Western economics, and foreign policy was regarded as a red herring. I get the impression that the Left on this thread are trotting out their own bugbears and are avoiding looking closely at what lies at the centre of extreme Islam - a totalitarian and supremist ideology.
More worryingly, the programme highlighted extreme views from bodies who claim to represent Muslims such as The Muslim Association Of Britain. These bodies were shown to dismiss any criticism as Islamaphobic. The moderates complained that this rhetoric was fuelling violent Islam.
I live in Luton, a town with a large Muslim community, and a town which has found itself in the middle of various controversies. It was here that the EDL was formed! I see the contrast between moderate and extreme Islam regularly - from the polite and hard working moderates who are a credit to the town, to those expressing views at odds with a liberal democracy, to those dealing out extemist literature in the streets. The moderates give me hope for the future and it's a battle they must win if we are ever going to coexist peacefully with Islam.
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2015/01/12/rector-of-great-mosque-of-paris-calls-for-political-islam-to-be-abandoned/
You call that "censor"? ;)) When you write a far too long post repeating yourself several times, I am in mye full right to choose what part of it to higlight, and what part of it to ansver. Making these ridiculously long quotes, and not least reading them, is pretty tiring.
I don't really buy that argument. I read the entire post, and I frankly don't see how it was "taken out of context". He wrote simply "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." There it is, fair and square. How is it "taken out of context"? He is basically saying the same thing as the Islamist fundamentalists say, or the very texts in the koran he feels so strongly about. It might be only a bad choice of words (which makes sense as the rest of the text is actually quite badly written for someone with English as his first language...), but that's how modern media works. Bad statements get publicity, and will cause reactions. Harris goes about in the same way in his "lectures" about religion. Simply highlighting every sentence or statement thats innapropriate in the context of the 21st century, and highlighting it as the very essence of the religious text... consisting of thousands of sentences in total...
And Sam Harris has none of my sympathy. Although his reasearch on religion and its practices is fairly non existant, he still feels he is in a position to lecture religious people about their own beliefs. During his debates he is constantly revealed to state false facts. His message is in essence that Islam is pure evil, and that all the billions of peaceful, moderate muslims out there are so because they don't follow the text properly. Which is not only provocative, but also plain stupid. But I guess everything is just "bad choice of words", "taken out of context"?
A very insightful post as you capture the key to this horrible conflict. The moderate forces within the Muslim communities must find the strenth and courage to defeat the forces of radical Islam. They are in the majority but they are seriously threatened and understandibly intimidated. The moderates must win this battle within or we are all doomed. There are too many countries all too willing to aid the extremists with weapons and money for their own ends in this battle. If the moderates lose, Europe will have committed cultural suicide, and the US will be next.
It's rarely the really poor people who get angry and susceptible to extremism, it's much more often those who merely look to a drab but still liveable life. Much like many of those flocking to Le Pen and tho rallying in Germany now are not really poor or threatened, but they fear for the things they do have, are concerned for their future and have vague visions of how they might turn to losers.
Religious extremism aims for the young and easily impressionable, the guys who dream of being somebody instead of nobody. Religion alone is already an illogical system that claims to have answers but demands unquestioning obedience. When such a system calls its followers to action everything can happen.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have that holier than thou approach. There is nothing divine about any of those, they are strictly diabolic.