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
I agree wholeheartedly with you and @patb on liberalism and the need to take a firm (fighting) stance. But it's also essential that we know exactly whom we oppose in which way. As you say, it's a free society and disliking gay people because you believe in a fairytale creature falls within those boundaries. Treating them different because you happen to work in the government or whatnot is crossing the line. I don't understand why so many people who call themselves liberals, or social liberals, just don't get this.
The complaint culture these north-african, arabian and levant people take with them is appaling and should be curbed exactly there where they cross the line, instead of nurtured. And, again and agian i'll point to the financing problem.
short term: those home-grown jihadi's fighting in Iraq and Syria should be destroyed by our own special forces. It's war, it's legal. those who come back to the West should be arrested and tried for high treason (taking up arms against their own country and it's allies).
At the same time, no trading with the Saouds, Quatar and other extremist states.
That's what I think and have been saying for a while as well @CommanderRoss
Good point. Problem is deciding when to fight and where and in what way.
The Vietnam War and invasion of Iraq were justified on precisely these liberal grounds. In Vietnam the Americans claimed to be protecting the world from communism, when in actual fact many Vietnamese saw the US as a continuation of the colonialist French and just wanted to kick occupying foreign armies out of their country. And with hindsight it has largely come to be seen as a disastrous neo colonial adventure. Liberalism was always used to justify colonialism because we were 'helping' poor johnie foreigner out of his pitiful state of un-Christian ignorance.
The second world war is one of the few wars everyone can agree was absolutely necessary to fight.
@Getafix I never said I was in the secret service. I was a police officer who served on anti terror operations and (for a while) with police intelligence. I have pointed this out throughout this thread when I mentioned it - if you care to look through my posts you will see that this is the case. You can do me the courtesy of not making me out to be lying when I have explained this from the start.
Before I answer any more questions I notice you have failed to answer mine. How much service to your country and community have you had and what is your own experience of terrorist matters from both an operational and personal perspective? You seem to know a lot about the mechanics of the subject, so I assume you have both?
When did you serve?
1975 to 2010
With so little experience, you must be grateful you can learn from all the real experts here.
I may have bumped into you at some point.
Fair points but I dont thing we are talking invasion here and foreign wars. We just need to get rid of the dreadful guilt that some feel re focussing on Islam as a possible centre of interest. The spectre of racism hangs over the whole debate and sometimes it seems that the internet, lounge and pub are the only places where honest, and therefore, useful debate takes place. I dont think I have seen anything much of use via mainstream media. There are some very good authors/academics out these but as was seen by the shambles of the Sam Harris/Ben Afleck "debate", these authors get shouted down when they enter the mainstream and tend to retreat back to writing more books. Harris has almost given up commenting as he predictied this many years ago and few within the establishment took him seriously.
I didn't call you a liar. I said it's an online forum and pretty much everyone uses a pseudonym. Claims like yours are not uncommon in these kinds of contexts. I think talking about ones own background on here is not a good route to go down. I'm prepared to believe you're who you say you are but frankly a lot wouldn't.
like probably 99.9% of people on here I haven't seen 'active service' but not entirely sure what the relevance is to be honest. Are we disenfranchised or our views less relevant because we haven't served In the police?
I have a huge amount of respect for people who serve in the police and emergency services but that doesn't mean that as citizens their views trump those of everyone else.
Btw, I haven't claimed to know the slightest thing about the mechanics of counter terrorism.
And lets not forget this one:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/men-who-pelted-worshipper-with-bacon-at-camden-mosque-jailed-for-eight-months-a3384641.html
People actually imprisoned for throwing foodstuffs!?!?! We have the resources to pay for that but not enough to give the police the tools to do their job?
Whilst I find the above behaviour utterly despicable and oafish are Muslims so pathetically thin skinned that they can't laugh this off as the act of two drunk twats? If they'd poked their dicks through my letterbox and pissed all over my carpet it would have been disgusting and I'd have been offended but would they have gone down for it?
Classic quote from the police on this:
'Speaking after the sentencing, DC Tracey McMath, from the Camden community safety unit, said: "The defendants showed a complete disregard for the faith and belief of others in this callous and highly offensive incident; and I hope their convictions highlight that we will not tolerate hate crime in any of its forms.'
And there you have it folks. Having a disregard for the faith and belief of others no matter how infantile and retarded said beliefs is an imprisonable offence in this country.
What would the judgement have been if they had said 'It's our belief that if we throw bacon into a mosque we will be rewarded in the afterlife.' As a defence it would have got them nowhere because Baconism is not one of the 'chosen' few religions that the government deems worthy of bending over backwards to tolerate.
If you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh and a few others you're laughing. Your beliefs are untouchable and there's a fascist dictatorship in place to make sure the rest of us fall into line.
If you're a Jedi, Scientlologist, Baconist or Pastafarian you're a figure of fun and you can piss off. Your beliefs, although equally ludicrous/based on zero empirical evidence, are bullshit and the government won't back you as it would if you believe a bloke walked on water, then rose from the dead, then flew into the sky where you can join him if you just follow a few simple rules (going to church, giving a load of money to the Vatican and absolutely NO wanking seems to be about the gist of it).
I'd love nothing more than to deride you but I have got it off my chest above and you seem like a nice affable chap who is harming no one so good luck to you. I don't doubt that your experience is genuine but I stand by my comment that the amount of people who would bother to turn to religion on their own if their parents hadn't forced it on them would be tiny. Back in the middle ages it was nice to come up with some explanations about the sun, the weather and why people have to die. But now you can look in any two bob science book and find the answers so there really is very little need for God in the mind of anyone with an inquiring mind. If religion didn't exist would we really feel the need to invent it today?
In terms of being unelectable I'm afraid I have to stand by that. Whatever beliefs you choose to hold in the privacy of your own home are fine as long as you're not hurting anyone. However there's a big difference between me tolerating someone being a crackpot in their own own home and being allowed access to public funds and the nuclear button. Call me pedantic but I'd prefer it if the Prime Minister wasn't someone who made their decisions based on voices in their head. That's why I give thanks I'm not an American.
It is possible that you are right, but I am not sure. I think that people have always asked what their role in the world is and in this, faith serves as an outlet that can be extremely beneficial. This is evidenced by the fact that religions are not static, they continue to morph and splinter.
I agree with you that a candidate would be unelectable if they were openly professing that you should vote for them based on their religious positions. If it isn't an issue of the campaign, it seems wrong to make it one though. Look at Theresa May, for example. She is a devout Anglican and her father was a vicar. You don't seem to be much of a Labour supporter, so that leaves you in a tough position for tomorrow.
Fortunately I'm out of the country so thankfully don't need to make a choice of what the least bad option is.
Such a pity 'None of the above' is not on the ballot. Although it would likely lead to a constitutional crisis as it would win a landslide.
Agreed. It's like walking into a cafe for food and being offered a really hard shit, a really soft shit, a half and half, one completely vegan, one packed with shortbread, one with leek, and one produced by a someone whose DNA is 100% English. I'll have the bacon sarny.
I would be very surprised if the Conservatives don't win the election, to be honest, but they may lose their majority in Parliament. Current polls are predicting an increased Conservative majority though.
That's a bit anti Islamic of you if you don't mind me saying so mate.
Ha! Glad you spotted the subtext. Brown or red sauce?
Yeah I reckon may will get a landslide
@TheWizardOfIce the problem with religion is that it goes far further then just a solution to the question of 'the meaning of life'. It gives regulations and symbolic procedures which humans find comforting, as we're wired that way. This also gives the opportunity of 'belonging to a group'and again, this taps in to a biological preference of beeing part of a (small) group to which one belongs. Hence the successive 'we-them'thinking which autoamtically follows suit.
A friend of mine is Christian Orthodox (Russian Orthodox) and, as this country has few orthodox people (and there's no Orthodox sheik to build churches) there are only a few places of worship. There are two priests. When a Catholic girl asked if she could join the service and also receive bread and wine (after all, the Catholics have the same habit, er..tradition) the one priest said yes, the other no. Why? Because she belonged to a different church. Even though both churches aknowledge to have the same 'god'.
These things are hard to understand for atheists, but it's all biological wiring which atheists overrule by rational thinking. This doesn't make them smarter in any way, they just chose (or are wired) differently.
It's one of the reasons why religion is so hard to get rid of. It's not just believing in god and denying science, it's part of their identity.
And that's why I think we should be careful to point exactly at whom we're fighting with Islamic terrorists. Calling them Islamists is, I think, fine, as it points directly to those who follow those hate-preachers from the middle east. But sayin you're at war with Islam you tap into the identity of the second or third biggest religion, afak you're declaring war on more then 1.5 billion people.
It's the same as saying you're at war with Christianity, or just the Poles. Yes, 99% of the Poles are Christian, but definately not all Christians are Poles.
Sadly a fair few of our American cousins would like the same thing. There are a lot of far right US Christians who are really into this 'end of days' thing. It's one of the reasons they insist on backing Israel to the hilt - it fits in with their crazy views about the Jews needing to be in control of Jerusalem in order for Christ to return, or something equally bonkers.
huffingtonpost.com/david-heilbroner/evangelicals-israel-and-t_b_391351.html
Wikipedia says this about religion in the US: "According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of the adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 46.5% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant, and 20.8% professing Roman Catholic beliefs."
People on here advocating 'war' and that kind of terminology have to realise they're playing into the hands of extremists on both sides of this conflict.
Remember, George W Bush invaded Iraq because God told him to. Many regard that as an illegal war. But in his mind Bush justified it through his religious faith - as perhaps did Blair.
No wonder it's so easy for the Islamists to depict Western military intervention in the Middle East as a latter day Crusade. In many respects they're not wrong.
Remove religion and our biological wiring would still dictate that we are, on the whole, moral and ethical beings. Religion should be something you opt into, not something that is all consuming from birth. We should look to each other and our surroundings for comfort. Find things in life that give us joy. Fuck arbitrary rules in a book.
This doesn't help much though for the above stated reasons. Interestingly enough, communism has taken over similar religious traits, creating a sense of belonging, and recogniseable symbols that make people feel part of a group. And as you can see, this political influence still lingers everywhere in the world. So it definately works well. Same goes for football clubs.
@Getafix yes, indeed. Problem is, at the same time, that we are throwing bombs, and they are killing people in the streets. It IS war, just not between 'The West' and 'Islam', but between 'so called ISIS'or Daesh and a coalition led by the US. Intertwined with a war between said coalition and 'the official Assad government', and some more parties.
Additionally, the one certainty is that one day we will all be dead and gone. The finality of that, and by extension the fact that we are finite beings, also plays into religion's hold. It's a part of the human ego to feel importance. To think one is special, smarter and privileged. Religion capitalizes on this hard wiring. It reinforces built in psychological preferences and heuristics.
It will be very difficult to shake and eliminate as a result.
But so does a secular society but religion would have us beleive that it is needed for those shared beleifs and communal belonging.
Do I feel isolated or a part of the community as an atheist? No. Do I share commion beliefs as part of modern Western culture as an atheist? yes.
People shared common norms and values way before someone waived a book of fairy tales at us. Thats how we survived and grew to be who we are. Hard to track and kill and wooly mammouth without co-operation and team play.
Religion steps in and takes contriol, wanting credit for creating these values and then creating control "carrot and sticks" to keep to the rules.
Even now when Christians are a minority in the UK, christian leaders try to take the line "yes, but they are christian values we follow" as if christianity invented kindness, consideration, empathy, etc etc...just a horrible arrogance
Of course, religion is not necessary. It's just convenient and plays into natural human biases. It feeds the ego.
For it to be eventually ostracized, secular society must offer a better alternative. Arguably it did for a time, but is now failing due to its own delusions and arrogance (income disparities, selected mass murder in the name of democracy, turning the other way to atrocities etc.). Hence the regrowth of religion in certain parts of the world & even within European societies.
That is the one thing that we don't have answers about yet, and that is why any theory (especially one that is believed by millions of others) can easily take hold. Religion plays into several natural cognitive biases.
If you believe that religion has maintained importance in the modern world due to the inability of secular society to deal with issues like income disparity and "selected mass murder in the name of democracy" perpetrated by the West, then I am afraid that you are part of the problem. Islamic extremism is dedicated to nothing less than the complete conversion of the global population to Islam and the incorporation of Sharia law, everywhere. It is easy and convenient to use modern terrorism as a mechanism for promoting your political objections to Western society, but unfortunately it flies directly in the face of the evidence. Radical islamic terrorism is active all across the world, including in nations that have very substantial social systems, like Sweden and in nations that have been historically antagonistic to Western policies, like Syria. If you bury your head in the sand, the situation will only get worse.