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
As for how dangerous Hitchens was... Well, he defended democracy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and thought religions were against it... I guess it is dangerous, but I far prefer dangerous free thinkers than dangerous obscurantist.
So I won't really try to correct you about the facts. But I'd like just to ask you : do you fear to be called racists if you start to agree with other people here that you consider to be frightened and unaware of the real issues, etc, etc ?
Am I afraid of being labelled a racist? Well, I like to think of myself as not a racist, so in that sense yes. But I'm not expressing these views out of a fear of being seen as an Islamaphobe - I'm expressing them because I believe them to be true and because I see a lot of hypocrisy in the way that the west treats Muslims.
Interesting article last week in the London Review of Books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n02/tariq-ali/short-cuts
But any way, I am sure there are errors in what I'm saying. I'm just thinking aloud really. I've found the discussion on here quite interesting and very civilised and it's made me think a lot more about my own attitudes to Muslims and Islam. I have to admit that I do often slip into the kind of casual Islamophobic comments that are common these days, but this whole discussion has actually made me rethink a lot of things.
We have been discussing more recently Islam in general and the way it is characterized in the West, rather than CH specifically, which I am not as familiar with as others here.
I too would prefer not to be labeled a racist, but I'm actually more concerned with using words in a way that might agitate and insult an entire culture and religion. That's not fair to the religion and it's not fair to the culture, because there are peace loving people within that religion and culture, as there are within all religions.
The murderers/terrorists did their killings in the name of Islam. However, using the term "Islamic terrorist" loosely can potentially make some feel more predisposed to looking differently (if even subconsciously) at all people of Islamic faith - I don't want that to happen because not all people of that faith are bad. The religion is not inherently dangerous, as far as I'm concerned. It has been interpreted (as any religion or ideology can be) dangerously by a few, and it is only those few who should bear the blame. Not all people of that faith by association.
So words are important, and they must be used carefully.
I'm not a religious person, but I respect people who are religious as long as they don't try to convert me to their faith. It is their right to be religious just as much as it is mine not to be.
And that is what islam does, believe it or not but that is a fact.
Got to love BJ sometimes
“We won’t succeed if western politicians just go around bashing and blaming Islam; that is hopeless … This problem can only be addressed if Muslim authorities and clerics find a powerful and compelling way of setting up an alternative narrative for young people that makes this seem irrelevant.”
I agree with the blogger about mockery being the most potent weapon against Islamist terrorists, or any kind of fanatic. That said, I am all for insulting bat-sh*t crazy fundies, especially when they murdered a few innocent civilians. And because wanting to control other people's sexuality, to submit women, to kill homosexuals, to fantasize about whatever number of virgins waiting for you in heaven for atrocities you committed on earth against your fellow primates... Well, that is sick, perverted, depraved, sadistic, twisted sexuality. No matter how you cut it (and whatever happened during the Crusades).
And mockery is also a form of insult, let's not forget.
A nice rewriting of history. ;)
And going back to the Crusades, or the Flood, to explain, or somewhat excuse what happened in Paris is absurd.
They were violent thugs of the Islamitic persuasion with a sense of importance that was totaly misguided. Anybody cheering for their behaviour is a flipping loon. ;)
Yes, try to say "I don't believe in God" in some parts of the world full of peaceful religious people... You may realize they're peaceful as long as you're being religious too.
But I know you'll prefer to explain this with some economics.
Hey after all, indeed religion is a very touchy subject if you start to say that it has some disadvantages. In the meantime, it's okay to say that poor people are illiterate puppets that are very dangerous (even though the "fact" that terrorists come from the lowest part of society looks a lot like an urban legend). Economics = Hate for dummies :)
Oh, btw, in a "France living under fear" (don't forget you claim not to speak about Charlie Hebdo, but you did write such nonsense several times...), "The Interview" has just been released on movie screens. With quite some indifference (200 viewers in Paris on the first showing, compared to 2000 for Imitation game)
It shows were the US interests lie, namely with economics and democratic values be damned. Because in the Saudi nation you get a 1000 strikes with a stick on your foot soles when you in any way criticize religion. How hypocritical does that make a war in Afghanistan & Iraq look now.
I could understand that they sent representatives to the funerals of the Saudi despot. Deplorable, but understandable because of our dependence on petrol. But not sending anyone in Paris was unforgiveable. I like Obama, but that was a stupid (in)action. Plain stupid.
On the plus side, Michelle Obama did not wear a veil in Saudi Arabia. I love the First Lady far more than her husband sometimes.
Very happy to hear that. I really am. Now just dial back the anger a little @Suivez_ce_parachute, and we'll be ok. ;)
- "Well, my analysis is that your child has autism because you don't love your child"
- "What ??? This is non sensical, I love him"
- "You're full of anger because the truth hurts you"
You say you're happy to hear that, but well, show more interests in facts rather than in decades old theories and you'll be far happier than you think : many of the pro-conspiracy beliefs rely on lies and disinformation... The world is very complex as it is, no need for some real-life SPECTRE behind it to explain it.
The terrorists have just killed a Japanese hostage, no need to look for some secret conspiracy in which Japan is part of the oppression of the Muslims (it's quite difficult to imagine a powerful country less implied in Middle-East affairs than Japan...), you just have to deal with the fact these people's belief lead them to kill blindly. Yep, religion is more important than economics...
Why do you hate economics?
Because that's like psychoanalysis : it's the theories first, and you twist the facts to them. Imagine that in astronomy, you had half of the scientists believing the Earth goes round the Sun, and the other half believing the Sun goes round the Earth :)
For instance, here, all the explanations/predictions according to which economics will explain terrorism, fails miserably. In France, there has been no single act of terrorism from the lowest classes of society (ie : the Romany people).
@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).
I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).
We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:
1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.
2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.
I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).
If your theory cannot explain what actually happens, but works only as a theory about the "motivations" and so on, then you'll feel you're always right, but this is self-delusion.