|
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. |
On December 23 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the left do the same with neoliberalism? When I asked for a definition I got a different one from everyone who responded. Ask right-wingers their definition of socialism, you will have the same results... It describes a set of ideas and policies; so if there's a range of things, it is only natural that different people focus on different aspects. Funnily enough, after decades of denying that neoliberalism exists, the IMF itself started talking about the notion... (There's even a definition in the introduction if you want an additional one!)
It's an opinion piece not from the IMF as an institution. There's a difference. The problem is that it doesn't describe a set of ideas and policies and that everyone uses it the way they want. Anyway it wasn't supposed to be an attack on the left or something. Was just trying to point out that using broad and ill defined terms is what happens everywhere.
On December 23 2016 02:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the left do the same with neoliberalism? When I asked for a definition I got a different one from everyone who responded. The same when people blame the elites. Blaming non or poorly defined groups happens all the time. There are thousands of macro-ecnomic theories. Neoliberalism vs Keynesianism is just a typical categorization roughly into two movements. No economist claims to hold "the truth" to describing all the details of the social human interaction process that we call "economy". Though I often get the feeling that neoliberals do exactly that when discrediting Keynesian-demand based and often "only" empirically proven theories in ways that make it look like only strictly mathermatical supply-based theories matter, regardless how simplified of a view on human behaviour they require. There is absolutely nothing wrong with neoliberalism and monetarism when you know how and when to use those measures from my point of view. But talking about controlling a free market-economy is fundamentally different from demanding government actions such as setting up a camp, which is a simple action that is under full control of the government, other than economic forces.
That's neoclassical not neoliberal. Austrian economists (Hayek, Coase, Mises) would almost certainly be called neoliberal but they're not neoclassical economists.
|
In other news, Manuel Valls is campaigning. Perhaps he was banking on a sudden, collective amnesia regarding his past action, but people view things differently:
+ Show Spoiler +
Some guy threw flour at him while shouting “49-3, we don't forget, we don't forgive!” [49-3 is the authoritarian way which he used six times to pass two liberal bills against his own majority, including the labour reform this summer.] A few days ago, he had the guts to claim that he wanted to... remove the 49-3 if he was elected. This about-face was largely criticized/mocked as hypocritical.
|
A happy ending from the market attack. Merry Christmas!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q3QiGGi.png)
|
From BBC:
"""
Libyan passenger plane with 118 people on board has been forced to land in Malta in what the Maltese prime minister called a "potential hijack situation".
The Airbus A320 was flying inside Libya for airline Afriqiyah Airways when it was diverted, local media report.
There were two hijackers involved, who threatened to bomb the plane, according to initial reports.
Maltese PM Joseph Muscat said security operations were standing by.
"""
|
|
|
I dont think the plane is related to ISIS. I think it's more likely to be two desperate refugees. If it was ISIS they would've simply blown up the plane.
Edit: I'm, just like everyone else, merely guessing. According to Danish media they've made demands and if met they are willing to turn over the hostages. However, what the demands are is unknown.
|
On December 23 2016 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I dont think the plane is related to ISIS. I think it's more likely to be two desperate refugees. If it was ISIS they would've simply blown up the plane.
Edit: I'm, just like everyone else, merely guessing. According to Danish media they've made demands and if met they are willing to turn over the hostages. However, what the demands are is unknown.
Why the hell would two desperate refugees hijack a plane? lol. You think it's a logical way of gaining passage to another country? Nothing to do with refugees. And why would ISIS only blow up a plane if they could hijack it potentially doing more damage?... The demands should clarify who or for what they are...
|
On December 23 2016 22:25 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I dont think the plane is related to ISIS. I think it's more likely to be two desperate refugees. If it was ISIS they would've simply blown up the plane.
Edit: I'm, just like everyone else, merely guessing. According to Danish media they've made demands and if met they are willing to turn over the hostages. However, what the demands are is unknown. Why the hell would two desperate refugees hijack a plane? lol. You think it's a logical way of gaining passage to another country? Nothing to do with refugees. And why would ISIS only blow up a plane if they could hijack it potentially doing more damage?... The demands should clarify who or for what they are...
This is just very far from the usual modus operandi of ISIS and claiming it is them without anything to back it up is straight up stupid. As it seems you didn't notice: half my previous post was devoted to explicitly stating that I was guessing and that we didn't yet know the demands (implying that we will know more when we get that information).
In related news: first 25 passengers (women and children) have been allowed to leave the plane.
|
I don't think arguments rooted in the logic of Occam's Razor are all that applicable to something like a terrorist hijacking, so for once, I agree with Ghostcom 
|
I actually think we agree more often then not - I just seldom comment when I'm in agreement. Still, I'll set a mark in the calendar
|
Thx Italian dudes for gunning the Taliban guy down, saved our authorities from embarassing themselves even further.
Hope the wounded policeman gets well soon
|
On December 23 2016 22:30 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 22:25 MyTHicaL wrote:On December 23 2016 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I dont think the plane is related to ISIS. I think it's more likely to be two desperate refugees. If it was ISIS they would've simply blown up the plane.
Edit: I'm, just like everyone else, merely guessing. According to Danish media they've made demands and if met they are willing to turn over the hostages. However, what the demands are is unknown. Why the hell would two desperate refugees hijack a plane? lol. You think it's a logical way of gaining passage to another country? Nothing to do with refugees. And why would ISIS only blow up a plane if they could hijack it potentially doing more damage?... The demands should clarify who or for what they are... This is just very far from the usual modus operandi of ISIS and claiming it is them without anything to back it up is straight up stupid. As it seems you didn't notice: half my previous post was devoted to explicitly stating that I was guessing and that we didn't yet know the demands (implying that we will know more when we get that information). In related news: first 25 passengers (women and children) have been allowed to leave the plane.
Yeah; unsurprisingly, I managed to read your 4 line post.
Stating an argument out of assumption and then qualifying it as a guess doesn't immunise the argument from criticism.
I don't think you can say ISIS has an operandi at least not when it is concerning lone wolf-style attacks. IEDs, suicide bombings, shootings, trucks.. All seem to be part of a very broad general category.
|
So apparently the hijackers are some old Libia Ghadafi lovers....
Edit: Polish news says they already surrendered and that they demanded that pro Ghadaffi party be established in Libia. Were seen flying old Libia flag.
|
On December 23 2016 23:32 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2016 22:30 Ghostcom wrote:On December 23 2016 22:25 MyTHicaL wrote:On December 23 2016 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I dont think the plane is related to ISIS. I think it's more likely to be two desperate refugees. If it was ISIS they would've simply blown up the plane.
Edit: I'm, just like everyone else, merely guessing. According to Danish media they've made demands and if met they are willing to turn over the hostages. However, what the demands are is unknown. Why the hell would two desperate refugees hijack a plane? lol. You think it's a logical way of gaining passage to another country? Nothing to do with refugees. And why would ISIS only blow up a plane if they could hijack it potentially doing more damage?... The demands should clarify who or for what they are... This is just very far from the usual modus operandi of ISIS and claiming it is them without anything to back it up is straight up stupid. As it seems you didn't notice: half my previous post was devoted to explicitly stating that I was guessing and that we didn't yet know the demands (implying that we will know more when we get that information). In related news: first 25 passengers (women and children) have been allowed to leave the plane. Yeah; unsurprisingly, I managed to read your 4 line post. Stating an argument out of assumption and then qualifying it as a guess doesn't immunise the argument from criticism. I don't think you can say ISIS has an operandi at least not when it is concerning lone wolf-style attacks. IEDs, suicide bombings, shootings, trucks.. All seem to be part of a very broad general category.
You misread my initial post I think. I was protesting the claim by CCstealthblue that the hijacking was done by or related to ISIS. I gave a possible alternative i.e. they could be desperate men who wanted asylum.
It's fine that you disagree with how plausible the alternative is, but that is hardly a discussion I'm interested in. As for whether or not ISIS operatives have a specific modus operandi I think you'll find that hijacking a plane would be a completely new thing for them and unlike the shootings and the trucks nothing their leaders have called for. It's also a discussion I'm entirely disinterested in having with you as the latest confirmed news is that the hijackers are seeking asylum in Malta.
|
Plane is hijacked in Libya: option 1: ISIS - unlikely because they apparently have a fear of planes, option 2: refugees.
I don't think you're interested in any discussion you just want to join in.
|
On December 24 2016 01:33 MyTHicaL wrote:
Plane is hijacked in Libya: option 1: ISIS - unlikely because they apparently have a fear of planes, option 2: refugees.
I don't think you're interested in any discussion you just want to join in.
At least you score points for consistency in your strawmanning. Merry Christmas.
|
I guess you can call it a pet-peeve the recent rush to blame refugees when very few people, I personally most certaintly do not, can comprehend what they have to go through. And yeah I will call it out when it is literally absurd as a possibility- I suppose you now see to what extent?
Merry Christmas to you too.
|
i don't believe there's a single refugee that thinks highjacking a plane would get him refugee status somewhere ...
that has no follow through what so ever.
this could be part of something else that will try to bring some attention to Libya in case things will start to happen.
|
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country.
|
criminals don't receive refugee status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
