CharlieHebdo

1282931333445

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think it's important to keep in mind that there were tens of thousands of civilian deaths, injuries and displacements as a result of the Iraq war (not counting all the garbage that's occurring now with ISIS which is directly the result of it).

    Those who called for that war and who supported it, no matter how 'rational or intellectual' their thinking, have blood on their hands. Some of us knew this mess would happen (it was discussed prior yo the war).

    Those lives matter just as much as ours.
  • Posts: 7,507
    The atrocities and violence comitted by western troops in the middle east, regardless of motivation, are in many cases much worse than anything those arab nations have done against us or themselves, not least in magnitude. Any rational human being should acknowledge that. And talking about oppression of people and race, the western imperialism has no match in modern history, and is largely responsible for the problems both "they" and "we" now face in the region. And those arab countries are not the only ones on our conscience. Any rational person will acknowledge these things.
  • Posts: 15,106
    How much of what's happening with ISIS can we really blame on the Iraq war? At some point, there is an ideology feeding the masacres. Not a Western action. which I was against by the way. And even though Hitchens approved of the war how influential he was to have blood on his hands?

    And agsin: Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins, what have they done or said that is comparable to Islamic terrorism or even the actions of christians fundamentalists not only in Africa but in the Westerm world?
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    How much of what's happening with ISIS can we really blame on the Iraq war? At some point, there is an ideology feeding the masacres. Not a Western action. which I was against by the way. And even though Hitchens approved of the war how influential he was to have blood on his hands?

    And agsin: Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins, what have they done or said that is comparable to Islamic terrorism or even the actions of christians fundamentalists not only in Africa but in the Westerm world?

    Hitchens was a useful idiot, providing 'left-wing' intellectual cover for the neo-cons as they pursued their post-colonial war in Iraq.

    What's happening in Iraq and Syria now is 90% down to the actions of Bush and Blair. To pretend otherwise is self-delussional and an attempt to dodge our responsibility for what's going on there. Not only did our war unleash this hell on the people of the Middle East, but we've stood idly by and even abbetted the Saudis in their global campaign of radicalisation of young Muslims to turn them into Wahabists. We've made Saudi our trusted ally, but it's Saudi that's been spreading this Islamist lunacy across the world.

    As someone said above, all of this was predicted at the time of the invasion - Bush and Blair and the lunatics around them chose to completely ignore those warnings. Our allies in France and Germany and countless other countries told us what we were doing was madness, but we ignored them.

    And yes, the whole screwed-up situation in the Middle East is very much down to Europe and America's meddling there over at least the past 100 years, if not longer. We've crushed moderate, democratic, secular governments whenever they've threatened our interests. The long term results are there for us now to see.

    And of course everything is twisted through our counter-productive, all too often un-critical support for Israel, and our need for oil. I don't think Israel is the primary issue at all, but our failure to demand a fair solution to the Palestinian issue has just created this festering sore - another useful recruiting device for the jihadis.

    Taking a step back from it all, it's not actually all that hard to see why young Muslims are drawn to IS. They perceive the Muslim world as having been exploited and oppressed and poorly governed for centuries. And they see the west, with some justification, as one of the main perpetrators of the humiliation and manipulation of the region. IS offers simple, radical answers - something young people always like. I see the appeal as not disimilar to that of the extreme left in the 60s and 70s, which was also, built on a lot of legitemate grievances.

  • Posts: 15,106
    Is the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack due to colonialism? How about 9/11? How about the application of sharia law in domestic matters in the UK? How about the treatment of women in Islamist countries? I'm all for criticizing the west and I'm not a fan of Bush or the GOP. Read what I mentioned above about Texas. But at some point, what creates the mess is religious obscurantism, not Western blunders. By the way, Bush's wars were also motivated by religious messianism. The republicans backing up Israel no matter what is also motivated by belief in apocalypse. Something atheists like Hitchens and Harris denounced in no uncertain terms.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    @Getafix:

    You are making some very good points. Its Incredible how hard it is for many in the western world to comprehend that for the arabs, also the moderate, antiradical, intellectual ones, it is a very difficult, sometimes unthinkable, prospect to see "us", and US especially, as the ones representing "justice" and "good" in this conflict after what has been going on there. (And I am not talking in regards to the fight against ISIS. The people countering ISIS so far are arabs in the region). Our treatment of the region has been incredibly cynical, violent and counterproductive, not to say extremely arrogant, and led to an almost unimaginable amount of suffering. Yet we naively expect them to happily and enthusiatically copy and adopt our democratic systems, with the leaders we elect, every time we bomb them. Its incredible! If that is not arrogance, what is?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    A lot of this comes down to 3 industries - critical ones as far as Western goverments are concerned:

    They are: oil, banking, & defense (in no particular order).

    All three industries are major exporters, and we know that we are all big importers of oil as well.

    1. With banking (whether through organizations like the World Bank or IMF or commercial banks) you control the debt and when you control the debt you can dictate terms (including getting a hold of natural resources). The US went out of its way recently to try to stop Britain and others from joining China's new Asian Infrastructure Bank. They failed and there was a public spat about it. Britain is now a founding member of that organization, a competitor to the World Bank/IMF that will operate on lending terms not dictated to by Washington.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/who-s-afraid-of-the-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-

    2. With defense, you export weapons (Saudi Arabia was the largest purchaser of American hardware last year and 4th biggest spender on military- a country responsible for Wahhabism and Salafism - puritanical, violent & extreme forms of Islam). In order to sell more weapons you need to have more conflict & fear (The Lockheed CEO admitted as much recently in a shareholder meeting).

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/20/asked-iran-deal-potentially-slowing-military-sales-lockheed-martin-ceo-says-volatility-brings-growth/

    3. With oil you control the well being of your population and ensure capitalism (or commercialism) continues in the West - you also can control how much of the black stuff your competitors can get. We need their oil. We also need to ensure that we control how much of that stuff is sold to fast growing China, India and others and at what price. Russia is not playing ball (it is doing deals with China outside the Western order and not transacting in Saudi backed US petro $ dollars). So it's being ostracized.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-opec-jostle-to-meet-china-oil-demand-1421987738

    Make no mistake about it - these are multi-billion $ industries with massive geopolitical ramifications. Politicians are bought and paid for by these folks. I'm pretty sure if Obama was not president today we would already have WW3. There will be dangerous days after the 2016 election no matter who gets into power - that's for sure.

    It's not a question of colonialism any more as a question of meddling in other country's affairs and attempting to shape their future in ways that do not suit them (they have to find their own way). Continued self-serving meddling is going to lead to continued asymmetric attacks by these folks - ironically one day with our own weapons.
  • Posts: 7,507
    The future prospects of global politics are inauspicious, to say the least...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    @bondjames, kudos to you sir for your excellent understanding of the global situation, and even MORE kudos for being able to sum it all up so precisely & succinctly!
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Hide everything under economics all you want, it seems that the biggest line to cross to accept all these theories that sound coherent but never actually predict and explain anything, is to consider that institutional antisemitism is a rational answer to the world's problems. Quite ironical that those who promote that then keep at throwing to others claims they are irrational victims of islamophobia to shut off any discussion about it.

    I've yet to see any comment about the students from the same school being killed or not killed according to their religion though. Ah, I understand it's hard to use economics then : "I'm analyzing this at a theoretical level, don't bother me with the facts".

    I think the line to cross is a bit like the same line between being religious or not ? Here you see some people having a very simplistic view of the world in terms of mechanisms, but very complex in terms of who operates : this way, you're always right, and each time you're proven wrong, it's not because the theory is wrong, it's because other people are behaving badly. The key is that any attempt by anyone else to prove your theory doesn't actually explain anything, can be debunked by some psychoanalysis babble. Is it why in the end, it's mostly male people who defend that ? :) All these religions have something in common, women are under men, and it's key for their existence.. Once you consider equality is a bad concept in our modern societies, you can start to excuse many, many things.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Hide everything under economics all you want, it seems that the biggest line to cross to accept all these theories that sound coherent but never actually predict and explain anything, is to consider that institutional antisemitism is a rational answer to the world's problems. Quite ironical that those who promote that then keep at throwing to others claims they are irrational victims of islamophobia to shut off any discussion about it.

    I've yet to see any comment about the students from the same school being killed or not killed according to their religion though. Ah, I understand it's hard to use economics then : "I'm analyzing this at a theoretical level, don't bother me with the facts".

    The problem with your interpretation is that you elevate religion and relgious fanatacism to some special higher status, detaching it from the realities of economics, social issues and politics.

    If you believe that religion is fundamentally a human construct, as you claim, then you surely have to recognise that it's intricately connected to all our other behaviours and human-created systems of interaction, exchange, conflict.

    Saying that this is 'all down to religion' doesn't actually expalin anything about what is actually going on in the real world.

    Where do these jihadis come from? Why do they believe what they believe? Why are young intelligent western-educated Muslims drawn to extreme violence and intollerance. Where is their financial backing coming from? Who is orchestrating and benefiting from what IS is doing? What are the origins of Islamist extremism? Etc. etc.

    When the west confronted communism it engaged in an intellectual, economic, military and cultural conflict at all levels. Communism was critiqued as an ideology in minute detail. We won't defeat the threat of Islamist extremism if our only response is to just dismiss them as religious nutters and ignore the wider context. It's our ability to analyse, understand and counteract the causes of Islamist extremism that will ultimately enable us to defeat it - or at least contain it.

    I actually don't really understand what your point is. You seem to not want to understand, or engage in a discussion about the nature of the threat that we're facing from Islamists. If you don't understand your enemy and their motivitations it can make it a lot harder to defeat them.

    I don't think any one on here is making excuses for what IS is actually doing - we're just putting it in a wider political and historical context. Something which Bush and Blair were unable/unwilling to do when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, ignoring the poisonous legacy of colonial interference (particularly British interference) over the previous centuries.

    For instance, the British were so idiotic in Afghanistan that they did not realise that sending British troops to Helmand was the worst possible decision. The locals (not just the Taliban) hate the British with a passion, due to our colonial adventures there in the 19th century. Much of the oppositon the poor British troops faced was not actually from Islamists at all - it was just ordinary locals who hated the idea of foreign troops on their soil and particularly hated the idea of British troops. Many British soldiers died simply for the reason that they were needlessly sent into an area where history made their presence totally unacceptable to the locals and where they were never going to be able to bring peace and stability. Utter, ignorant stupidity than any military historian could have warned of in advance. Just because someone, or a political elite, were unwilling/unable to see things in a wider context.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Some of my friends have gotten angry at me when the topic of religion has come up. I have been accused of speaking out of ignorance more than once. When I then ask these people if they have actually read the Quran or the Bible (I have), the answer is "No, but..."
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Some of my friends have gotten angry at me when the topic of religion has come up. I have been accused of speaking out of ignorance more than once. When I then ask these people if they have actually read the Quran or the Bible (I have), the answer is "No, but..."

    With both Christianity and Islam, neither religion is defined entirely by the sacred text alone. There has been almost two millenia of interpretation of the new testament. Although there are people (generally protestant evangelicals) who have chosen to interpret the Bible as literally the word of God, to be read literally, that is not the mainstream Christian tradition at all really. To understand Christianity you need look at the wider texts, traditions and interpretations.

    The same is actually true of Islam. During the centuries when Islam was argubaly one of the world's leading intellectual cultures, at the forefront of science and philosophical enquiry, Muslim scholars were very much engaged with interpreting the Koran. Like Christianity, interpretations have changed over time. The Koran has not always been interpreted in the rigid, entirely literal way, that is by so many of these tedious, ignorant jihadis.

    So just reading the Koran and the Bible does not tell you everything about Islam and Christianity. Although they are obviously a good place to start and you're clearly streets ahead of most people if you've taken the time and effort to read them yourself. I've read some of the Koran in translation - the hardcore Muslims will of course say it has to be read in the original Arabic though!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited April 2015 Posts: 45,489
    Of course, but the Quran itself says that it is very Clear and Easy to understand. The new testament says that not an iota of the law of the old testament is to be changed.
    If you have to interpret a religious text in a most imaginative way to make any sense of it or to make it fit normal human ethics, why not discard the whole text altogether?
    Answer: Because then you have to discard the religion also, and that is for many an identity marker. Much easier to put on some blindfold and make pretend.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    Some of my friends have gotten angry at me when the topic of religion has come up. I have been accused of speaking out of ignorance more than once. When I then ask these people if they have actually read the Quran or the Bible (I have), the answer is "No, but..."

    With both Christianity and Islam, neither religion is defined entirely by the sacred text alone. There has been almost two millenia of interpretation of the new testament. Although there are people (generally protestant evangelicals) who have chosen to interpret the Bible as literally the word of God, to be read literally, that is not the mainstream Christian tradition at all really. To understand Christianity you need look at the wider texts, traditions and interpretations.

    The same is actually true of Islam. During the centuries when Islam was argubaly one of the world's leading intellectual cultures, at the forefront of science and philosophical enquiry, Muslim scholars were very much engaged with interpreting the Koran. Like Christianity, interpretations have changed over time. The Koran has not always been interpreted in the rigid, entirely literal way, that is by so many of these tedious, ignorant jihadis.

    So just reading the Koran and the Bible does not tell you everything about Islam and Christianity.

    ...And yet about 40% of American believes that the Bible tells the literal truth about the creation of the world and the appearance of life and humans on the planet. But even if not such a high number of believers were Biblical literalists, one would need to ask how does one determine what is literal and what is not, what is true as written and what is metaphorical.

    And the same is true of any sacred text. My problem is not with the moderates, but with the radicals, nevertheless both draw their inspiration on the same book they hold as sacred. And we know these sacred books to be wrong in so many ways, on so many subjects. And when the book starts being wrong when it says you have to submit to this hypothetical (I say this to be polite, I'd say imaginary usually).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Some of my friends have gotten angry at me when the topic of religion has come up. I have been accused of speaking out of ignorance more than once. When I then ask these people if they have actually read the Quran or the Bible (I have), the answer is "No, but..."

    With both Christianity and Islam, neither religion is defined entirely by the sacred text alone. There has been almost two millenia of interpretation of the new testament. Although there are people (generally protestant evangelicals) who have chosen to interpret the Bible as literally the word of God, to be read literally, that is not the mainstream Christian tradition at all really. To understand Christianity you need look at the wider texts, traditions and interpretations.

    The same is actually true of Islam. During the centuries when Islam was argubaly one of the world's leading intellectual cultures, at the forefront of science and philosophical enquiry, Muslim scholars were very much engaged with interpreting the Koran. Like Christianity, interpretations have changed over time. The Koran has not always been interpreted in the rigid, entirely literal way, that is by so many of these tedious, ignorant jihadis.

    So just reading the Koran and the Bible does not tell you everything about Islam and Christianity.

    ...And yet about 40% of American believes that the Bible tells the literal truth about the creation of the world and the appearance of life and humans on the planet. But even if not such a high number of believers were Biblical literalists, one would need to ask how does one determine what is literal and what is not, what is true as written and what is metaphorical.

    And the same is true of any sacred text. My problem is not with the moderates, but with the radicals, nevertheless both draw their inspiration on the same book they hold as sacred. And we know these sacred books to be wrong in so many ways, on so many subjects. And when the book starts being wrong when it says you have to submit to this hypothetical (I say this to be polite, I'd say imaginary usually).

    I agree of course. And lots of moderate Christians and Muslims would say that one the reasons for extremism is poorly educated or misguided people reading the sacred texts and making very simplistic, literal interpretations of what they say. Many American Christians are protestants of course, who are encouraged to read and interpret the Bible themselves, whereas Catholics and Orthodix Christians rely much more on a scholarly interpretation, which tends not to be quite so literal.

    Yes, I think it's imaginary as well, but of course if you believe it, then it's not imaginary - it becomes something real. That's the thing about religion, even those of us who don't believe it cannot dismiss it simply as fantasy, because religion does exist and has real consequences. It's been created by the human mind over centuries. It's actually what makes it so fascinating. I'm an aetheist, but I find the history of religion fascinating. It's played such an important part in the development of the human species and human civilisation - we can't just dismiss it as fairy tales, because it's real significance is much more than that.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Actually, we can and should dismiss it as fantasy, or to be precise call a spade a spade and say they are fantasies. We can certainly refuse to pander to demands of the believers for things that are not sustained by evidence. They can believe in it all they want. But no, creationism should not be taught in classes, yes, we can make fun of Mohammed, the Pope and what have you, no, a national day of prayer is certainly NOT constitutional and so on.

    I think it matters a lot to study the history of religions. And often by doing so we see how unsubstantiated the beliefs are.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,015
    The irony is that history of religion is called important, but history of gender issues is considered by many political correctness going crazy. While it definitely rules the world : it's a common point between religions to treat men and women differently. It's a bit like the antisemitism that underlines many posts here in this thread : shoud we consider it ok that women are inferior to men, just because the world exists because it was so for ages ? I, for one, consider you can agree that something ruled the world for ages, but that it doesn't mean it should be respected just for the sake of history. When a student is killed and another's life is spared because he has the "good religion", then talk about Obama and Israel all you want, the guy who pulls the trigger mostly thinks about "his God".
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

    That there is far more involved than economics, for one thing the male drive towards aggression combined with a search for a spiritual need to make sense of life and the world play a big part as well.
    Economics are a part of the make up of aggression under the guise of religious violence, they are not the explanation.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

    What I think he's trying to say is that it's not because something has existed for long that it is right, just or legitimate. The Church was and is a phallocratic institution. Homosexuals are murdered in Africa and elsewhere according to Christian and Islamic doctrines. The sacred texts say it is the right thing to do. The moral thing. But no need to use these extreme examples: women vote has been opposed by the Church and they could dwell on a long tradition to justify it. anti-Semitism too. A tradition has in itself no legitimacy or veneer of honorability.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Religion is respected due to the numbers who believe it and the political power it has behind it. If you take that away, you are left with the pure concept. A concept which deserves the same amount of respect as fairies, unicorns, astrology, alien abductions and all of the other ideas that have ZERO evidence to support them, Smaller groups are openly ridiculed as their ideas are without foundation and not well thought out. But religion has some kind of magical taboo around it which means even some non-beleivers will go out of their way to be "inclusive". If I meet someone who knows there are fairies, I can either patronise them and say "thats nice, it must give you great comfort" or challenge them and point them in the right direction in terms of really thinking about the idea and the "evidence" they have considered. This may sound harsh and organised religion wants us to think its harsh. They don't like their ideas challenged and do their best to demonize those who want a grown up debate and fail to respect their "sky fairies".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Economics are a part of the make up of aggression under the guise of religious violence, they are not the explanation.

    Agreed. No one is putting this down to economics alone. We finished that discussion about two months ago on this thread. The problem is economic, cultural, educational, social, & religious doctrine (independent of culture), .There's no need to rehash the "economics-only" argument here over and over again. We are well beyond that. It is a factor. Not the only factor. Keep in mind that when we say economic we don't only mean from their side. We mean from our side too - I have articulated in my last post what large scale factors are being used, by which industries, and how they benefit the west while essentially making use of the middle east through divide and conquer. A reaction to that is inevitable - it's just become more immediate recently.

    Having said that, this is also not a "religion-only" argument as some have tried to conveniently portray it as. I know it's easy to have a bogey-man to demonize (communism, Marxism etc. and now flavour of the month Islam), but it is more than that. Jack Nicholson famously said, this town needs an enema (in this case, it's more like this world needs an enemy). Radical Islam in this case is just a convenient tool being used to mobilize the disenfranchised & those without hope who have grievances (some legitimate, some illegitimate but none justifiable of murder).
    Ludovico wrote: »
    A tradition has in itself no legitimacy or veneer of honorability.

    That's true.
    Getafix wrote: »
    That's the thing about religion, even those of us who don't believe it cannot dismiss it simply as fantasy, because religion does exist and has real consequences. It's been created by the human mind over centuries. It's actually what makes it so fascinating. I'm an aetheist, but I find the history of religion fascinating. It's played such an important part in the development of the human species and human civilisation - we can't just dismiss it as fairy tales, because it's real significance is much more than that.

    That's true as well.
    patb wrote: »
    Religion is respected due to the numbers who believe it and the political power it has behind it. If you take that away, you are left with the pure concept. A concept which deserves the same amount of respect as fairies, unicorns, astrology, alien abductions and all of the other ideas that have ZERO evidence to support them,

    I don't think it's fair to dismiss everything about religion outright. While some of the fables & parables do not stand up to scrutiny, like any good story these can teach us valuable lessons about life and good and bad - as long as we take them in the context that they should be taken - as stories - as narratives - and nothing more. Like a good movie.

    Many take it as more than that. This is where problems start.

    People are known to take all kinds of things for more than they are. Bond fandom, Batman fandom (the theatre killer from a few yrs back was obsessed with Batman movies and this was an influence in his crazy killing spree).

    So that is a human problem (believing that which is not provable), and organized religion does us no favours by officially (and with vigor) continuing to propagate the dogmas that cannot be proven. To some extent, they have an official license to mislead. This is true of all religions however, not just Islam.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Religion for the believers is fact. If its fiction, its not religion. No one can seriously try to support religion as the stories have something to tell us but they dont stand up to scrutiny. This is exactly the type of double speak that we need to avoid. If its just a story, then it deserves the same respect as Cinderella, the Famous Five or Henry 4th . I don't see any suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the name of ficticious stories. Its the fact that they know its fact that is the issue.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I gave the Batman example to show that fictional stories can in fact have the same negative effect on a young and impressionable mind. That's just one of many examples. To some extent, it does not matter whether something is called factual - it only matters whether the reader thinks it is. That is why education (and particularly science education) is so important. So people can be more able to separate the fact from the fiction with an inquisitively trained mind.

    Religions should not be officially sanctioned or taken as fact in societies though. They should be taken as narratives/traditions that are there to teach us things about life. Just like a good movie. Just like a good story. Would be US presidents should not have to pledge their allegiance to a faith to get elected - but that is a requirement in fact (if not in law).

    One day the laws will be changed to give religion less emphasis in societies - but we're a long way away from that - science has more work to do to debunk some of the so called 'facts' religions spout..
  • Posts: 11,425
    Religion is a fact of life and it's not going to just disappear. In many parts of the world people would think us seriously weird for even questioning the existence of a god/gods.

    We're not going to get far with battling Islamists if our response is to tell Muslims everywhere that religion is just a load of old bo**ocks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Religion is a fact of life and it's not going to just disappear. In many parts of the world people would think us seriously weird for even questioning the existence of a god/gods.

    We're not going to get far with battling Islamists if our response is to tell Muslims everywhere that religion is just a load of old bo**ocks.

    That is true.

    No matter how far fetched some religious parables etc. are, many do believe them wholeheartedly.

    Having said that, there are also Nobel prize winners who are religious too so just because someone is religious does not mean they cannot be reasoned with.

    One cannot reason with fanatics though, no matter what the religion, and sadly we have fanatics from all faiths and without faith as well.
  • Posts: 11,425
    We need moderate Muslims on our side if we are going to beat Islamofascism and at the moment most Muslims (with good cause) are very mistrustful of the west.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    An interesting article (dated though) on some of the complexities around this.

    The latter part of the article is especially interesting, with reference to Tony Blair (Quartet Special Envoy) and our good friend Saudi Arabia. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism
Sign In or Register to comment.