EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1299
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 29 2021 07:48 JimmiC wrote: When did I ever say there are no terrorist attacks on those countries?Are you saying there are not terrorist attacks in those countries? Because that is also not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Egypt https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine/article/abs/terrorism-in-japan/0395D08D87A1E7786083428B9B64831B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Saudi_Arabia Again you seem to be under the impression that I am making some sort of morale judgement and is arguing against something else entirely. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 28 2021 03:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: As can be seen, when the sentence and the preceding sentences that make up the context is taken as a whole I have written that blocking the Suez canal would anatgonise a wide range of nation states that would seek action that otherwise not normally directed at. You I presume, is not stupid and so know this, otherwise you wouldn't had cut up the sentence. It would be a very foolhardy terrorist organisation that purposefully block the Suez canal. They gain nothing much, and manage to annoy everybody that depends on the Suez Canal. So Egypt, Saudi Arabia, most of Europe, but also countries most "terrorists" wouldn't want to annoy like China, South Korea, Japan, India, who might be looking for a reason to use their recently acquired power projection. You don't actually think I would forget what I wrote and would go "all right then I totally wrote that, and totally didn't write all the preceding other stuff" that would change the intention of a single phrase? As for the second quote was following your talking about ISIS. Take the example of your wikipedia page on China. None of those are from ISIS but from local China specific terrorism. Terrorists cover disparate groups or individuals who want to achieve specific aims. They don't normally aim to antagonise practically the world that depends on global maritime trade at once. I thought you was mistaken about motives but since you chop up sentences to change its meaning by exclusion, it seems obvious that you are not lacking in reading comprehension, but rather you are contrary for the sake of being contrary. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
I already answered your question about why terrorist wouldn't want to annoy a broad swathe of countries, by telling you that On March 28 2021 03:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote: , but apparently, I have done the gross disservice of overestimating your intelligence. It's because military attention tend to disrupt with their plans, usually by identifying and killing them. As for why, I think it is self explanatory why terrorist groups don't want military attention being applied to them, unless their explicit aim is for those specific countries to overreact and overreach. You claimed that "China is like one of the countries ISIS hates the most" and " India is also probably top 5on their hit list and so on. ", throw some wikilinks that doesn't actually show that since those listed incidents are not affliated with ISIS and continue to pretend that I somehow said there are no terrorists attacks against those countries instead of On March 28 2021 03:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:It would be a very foolhardy terrorist organisation that purposefully block the Suez canal. They gain nothing much, and manage to annoy everybody that depends on the Suez Canal. So Egypt, Saudi Arabia, most of Europe, but also countries most "terrorists" wouldn't want to annoy like China, South Korea, Japan, India, who might be looking for a reason to use their recently acquired power projection. and that I already written On March 31 2021 05:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote: which is acknowledgement that terrorists attacks do occur, but you claim dodging. But I suppose you can claim anything when you misquote by omission to change the meanings of sentences. Then throw a fit when called out on it. Have a good one 🤣Again you seem to be under the impression that I am making some sort of morale judgement and is arguing against something else entirely. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Kreuger
Sweden988 Posts
"Russia has warned Nato against sending any troops to help Ukraine, amid reports of a large Russian military build-up on its borders." "Ukraine's army commander Gen Ruslan Khomchak says Russia has deployed 28 battalion tactical groups near Ukraine's eastern border and in Crimea, which would amount to 20,000-25,000 troops. Russian officials have not confirmed that, nor given any precise figures. According to Gen Khomchak, Russia also has nearly 3,000 officers and military instructors in the rebel units in eastern Ukraine." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-biden/biden-affirms-u-s-unwavering-support-for-ukraine-in-call-statement-idUSKBN2BP14C "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Joe Biden on Friday expressed strong U.S. support for Ukraine in a call with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the White House said. “President Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbass and Crimea,” the statement said." Looks like Putin will test the support and what Biden is made of. Wouldnt expect something to actually happen but allways concerned | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22584 Posts
On April 03 2021 02:32 Kreuger wrote: Didn't we all expect nothing to actually happen with Crimea either?https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56616778 "Russia has warned Nato against sending any troops to help Ukraine, amid reports of a large Russian military build-up on its borders." "Ukraine's army commander Gen Ruslan Khomchak says Russia has deployed 28 battalion tactical groups near Ukraine's eastern border and in Crimea, which would amount to 20,000-25,000 troops. Russian officials have not confirmed that, nor given any precise figures. According to Gen Khomchak, Russia also has nearly 3,000 officers and military instructors in the rebel units in eastern Ukraine." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-biden/biden-affirms-u-s-unwavering-support-for-ukraine-in-call-statement-idUSKBN2BP14C "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Joe Biden on Friday expressed strong U.S. support for Ukraine in a call with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the White House said. “President Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbass and Crimea,” the statement said." Looks like Putin will test the support and what Biden is made of. Wouldnt expect something to actually happen but always concerned The West has abandoned Ukraine in the recent past once already. If Putin decides he likes to own Ukraine, are we actually going to war to stop him or will we call him a naughty boy again and hope that surely this time he has enough lebensraum. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 02 2021 07:50 JimmiC wrote: Eh, have a good one you said. But continue to post. What a joke.I am not crazy, I took responsibility for my mistake on ISIS on the next post and again. I know this must be strange for you as you spend pages changing your points so you are not wrong. I didn't pull that out of the quote because I was hiding it, it had nothing to do with ISIS. I pulled out those quotes because you had just said you never said it, and I was showing that you did. And then showed you all the terrorist attacks that have happened. The fit is in your imagination, or maybe your projecting I can't be sure, heck I still don't know if you think "terrorists" don't want to upset those countries or not. It's quite simple. I never said China doesn't get terrorist attacks. That's just you who claimed that I did. When I asked where I said that, you went ahead and brazenly cut up a sentence to remove the context so it was the opposite of what I wrote. That I wrote that terrorists do not aim to create a situation where they are the targets of several and of such a wide range of countries at once for so little gain. And it just so happened I listed some of those countries, and you took China and India out of that and made some rubbish up about that. You made a mistake with China and ISIS, because you are lazy and pulled out a mass of wikipedia links and hoped I didn't read them, which suggests that you don't have any real interest in the matter. Which raises the question of why you continue this line of reasoning when you clearly don't actually care? But you cared enough to misquoted and took out the context for the quote in a bid to connect China and terrorism. I have no idea why you would do this. China has terrorist attacks. Same with India. Difference is (ISIS or otherwise) they aren't as a part of an attack to economcially disrupt the global maritime trade. What interests me is why you are pretending I wrote something, implied or otherwise, that I in fact did not. I don't know why you think I would not realise that you cut up what was written so the meaning was changed. And you continue to insist this. Who are you trying to convince? It certainly can't be me as I already told you I am not fooled. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
You knew you was dishonestly presenting what I wrote, and I know you dishonestly quoted what I wrote. The mystery is why you think I would not know that you dishonestly quoted what I wrote, as if somehow I would forget what I wrote, despite this being a forum and so what is written is recorded. Don't know what you expected after you done that, but apparently you seem to believe that if you keep repeating it, I would suddenly turn around and decided I wrote something I did not. Or perhaps it was your intention all along because you don't want to admit that I didn't write that China don't have terrorist attacks. I don't see this conversation going any further as apparently your aim is to try to persuade that I meant something I did not by excluding the qualifying statements around a phrase, so I wouldn't be replying any further. Insert an expression of farewell. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57224452 EU leaders are due to discuss their response to what the union's executive called a "hijacking" and the US state department "a shocking act". Belarus forced the plane, which was bound for Lithuania, to land in Minsk claiming a bomb threat to the aircraft. It arrested the Belarusian journalist and activist Roman Protasevich. This is... honestly this is crazy. The flight wasn't even going to Belarus, it was travelling between two European cities via Belarusian airspace, as dozens of flights do every day. Lukashenko seems to have invented a bomb threat to get the plane to divert to Minsk, and even sent a MiG-29 to make absolutely sure his friendly warning was heeded. As soon as the plane landed they pulled the journalist off and arrested him, then "searched" for the bomb and let the plane go. Absolutely wild. Polish and Lithuanian government ministers have called it a hijacking, which I think is pretty accurate. The journalist is a dissident who has been critical of Lukashenko's regime and now faces imprisonment, torture and death. This has huge ramifications imo. Freedom of the air is fundamental. If authoritarian regimes start to believe they can simply snatch their opponents out of the air.... can you imagine if Putin or the CCP started to see this as an option in their airspace? How should the EU respond when a plane travelling between two of its capitals is forced to land in a third country so a government critic can be arrested? That is the question European leaders must answer when they meet in Brussels. + Show Spoiler + The arrest of Roman Protasevich has provoked a chorus of international outrage but will that be echoed by action? Some leaders - including the Polish prime minister - have already called for fresh sanctions on President Lukashenko's authoritarian government. Eight foreign affairs committee chairmen from the UK, the US and the EU said flights over and to Belarus should be banned for what they described as an act of piracy. Some officials even suggested cars and lorries could be stopped from entering the EU from Belarus. Mr Lukashenko has shown how far he is prepared to go to suppress opposition after disputed elections last year. The EU now has to decide what price it is prepared to make him pay. I've been watching the situation in Belarus with horror for a long time. It's tragic to watch a democracy die day by day on the very border of Europe. Even against that backdrop, this is wild. I would like to see a crushing response tomorrow from the EU and US. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
Like you say, this can't become a thing that leaders do. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18442 Posts
On May 24 2021 15:38 Jockmcplop wrote: Surely the response has to be completely devastating, right? Like you say, this can't become a thing that leaders do. Describe this response. Because the EU already has strict sanctions on the leadership. Sanctions on the country will work no better. What *can* the EU (or NATO for that matter) do? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
On May 24 2021 15:42 Acrofales wrote: Describe this response. Because the EU already has strict sanctions on the leadership. Sanctions on the country will work no better. What *can* the EU (or NATO for that matter) do? I dunno, something drastic? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
When it comes to sanctions, the options are limited because Belarus is already heavily sanctioned. I have heard following propositions: -Block commercial land traffic from Belarus entering EU. -Ban civilian airplanes from entering airspace over Belarus I think at this point we are out of options negatively affecting only Lukashenko. We have to hurt ourselves a little if we are to increase pressure. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22584 Posts
Sadly the EU is likely to be its usual meek self but this should be a big deal and responded to with as much pressure as the EU can muster. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
They should seriously consider doing whatever that is, imo. | ||
| ||
