|
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 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power.
This far right habit to talk about “The Left” as some evil octopus which leads the world is beyond ridiculous, especially considering the actual current power balances. The European country which welcomed the most migrants, Germany, is governed by a coalition where the right has the upper hand. France, where the left is supposedly ruling, took almost no refugee; our prime Minister even criticized Merkel's migration policy, triggering critics from his left. Meet the complexity of the world. And if you think there are vast differences between the governmental centre-left and the right when it comes to immigration, you're blinded by partisanship; most of the time it's nuances of the same policy, at least in my country.
Your idea that “the left” (brr!) wants to welcome refugees because they vote for them is pure trash. First, you need to have the nationality to vote; second, we're talking about tiny amounts, not even 1% of the population—far from enough to move the lines when the gap between the left and the right can reach millions of votes.
Oh, and if they are refugees, it's precisely because you cannot help them directly in their country, where they are being slaughtered or at great risk of being so. Just like all far right folks, you deliberately confuse economic migrations and refugees.
|
On December 27 2016 21:07 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. This far right habit to talk about “The Left” as some evil octopus which leads the world is beyond ridiculous, especially considering the actual current power balances. The European country which welcomed the most migrants, Germany, is governed by a coalition where the right has the upper hand. France, where the left is supposedly ruling, took almost no refugee; our prime Minister even criticized Merkel's migration policy, triggering critics from his left. Meet the complexity of the world. And if you think there are vast differences between the governmental centre-left and the right when it comes to immigration, you're blinded by partisanship; most of the time it's nuances of the same policy, at least in my country. Your idea that “the left” (brr!) wants to welcome refugees because they vote for them is pure trash. First, you need to have the nationality to vote; second, we're talking about tiny amounts, not even 1% of the population—far from enough to move the lines when the gap between the left and the right can reach millions of votes. Oh, and if they are refugees, it's precisely because you cannot help them directly in their country, where they are being slaughtered or at great risk of being so. Just like all far right folks, you deliberately confuse economic migrations and refugees.
To many people they stop being refugees when they move past the camps at the border and try to get deeper into Europe. They don't do that to be safe, since they already are safe now, they do it to munch off our wealth.
|
You need to be part of the Europol's European Counter Terrorism Centre to know that 'further attacks are likely to be attempted'? My grandma reached the same conclusions
|
On December 27 2016 21:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. This far right habit to talk about “The Left” as some evil octopus which leads the world is beyond ridiculous, especially considering the actual current power balances. The European country which welcomed the most migrants, Germany, is governed by a coalition where the right has the upper hand. France, where the left is supposedly ruling, took almost no refugee; our prime Minister even criticized Merkel's migration policy, triggering critics from his left. Meet the complexity of the world. And if you think there are vast differences between the governmental centre-left and the right when it comes to immigration, you're blinded by partisanship; most of the time it's nuances of the same policy, at least in my country. Your idea that “the left” (brr!) wants to welcome refugees because they vote for them is pure trash. First, you need to have the nationality to vote; second, we're talking about tiny amounts, not even 1% of the population—far from enough to move the lines when the gap between the left and the right can reach millions of votes. Oh, and if they are refugees, it's precisely because you cannot help them directly in their country, where they are being slaughtered or at great risk of being so. Just like all far right folks, you deliberately confuse economic migrations and refugees. To many people they stop being refugees when they move past the camps at the border and try to get deeper into Europe. They don't do that to be safe, since they already are safe now, they do it to munch off our wealth.
"our wealth", rofl
|
France266 Posts
On December 27 2016 21:07 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. This far right habit to talk about “The Left” as some evil octopus which leads the world is beyond ridiculous, especially considering the actual current power balances. The European country which welcomed the most migrants, Germany, is governed by a coalition where the right has the upper hand. France, where the left is supposedly ruling, took almost no refugee; our prime Minister even criticized Merkel's migration policy, triggering critics from his left. Meet the complexity of the world. And if you think there are vast differences between the governmental centre-left and the right when it comes to immigration, you're blinded by partisanship; most of the time it's nuances of the same policy, at least in my country. Your idea that “the left” (brr!) wants to welcome refugees because they vote for them is pure trash. First, you need to have the nationality to vote; second, we're talking about tiny amounts, not even 1% of the population—far from enough to move the lines when the gap between the left and the right can reach millions of votes. Oh, and if they are refugees, it's precisely because you cannot help them directly in their country, where they are being slaughtered or at great risk of being so. Just like all far right folks, you deliberately confuse economic migrations and refugees.
I can't say for Germany, but this is actually a thing in France. Welcoming massive amounts of immigrants from the MENA area and turning them and their children into a grateful constituency has been an official policy of the French Socialist Party for quite a bit of time now (albeit not an openly discussed one).
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
--------------------
You can (and should) help refugees either directly in their home countries (not every part of Syria is war torn) or in neighboring countries (as intended by the Geneva convention). It's much more efficient money-wise than bringing them in Europe/North America, which means more people in need of help are getting help.
The Syrian "asylum seekers" who feel they are at risk of being slaughtered by government forces are likely to be sunni extremists. Thus I see no reason why we should bend over backwards to accommodate them in the west.
|
we have a little drama going on over here. after the latest parliamentary election in which PSD won, they formed a coalition with ALDE for a parliamentary majority then proposed a prim minister(as customary/law): Sevil Shhaideh - a woman from our turkic minority but the president, Klaus Iohannis - a man from our german minority(Siebenbürger Sachsen), rejected the proposal without giving a reason so now people speculate.
the mainstream speculation is that Akram Shhaideh (Shhaideh's husband of syrian origin) is a supporter of Assad and we can't have that because ... <national security related issues>.
anyway, it's back to the drawing board for PSD.
|
On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. This far right habit to talk about “The Left” as some evil octopus which leads the world is beyond ridiculous, especially considering the actual current power balances. The European country which welcomed the most migrants, Germany, is governed by a coalition where the right has the upper hand. France, where the left is supposedly ruling, took almost no refugee; our prime Minister even criticized Merkel's migration policy, triggering critics from his left. Meet the complexity of the world. And if you think there are vast differences between the governmental centre-left and the right when it comes to immigration, you're blinded by partisanship; most of the time it's nuances of the same policy, at least in my country. Your idea that “the left” (brr!) wants to welcome refugees because they vote for them is pure trash. First, you need to have the nationality to vote; second, we're talking about tiny amounts, not even 1% of the population—far from enough to move the lines when the gap between the left and the right can reach millions of votes. Oh, and if they are refugees, it's precisely because you cannot help them directly in their country, where they are being slaughtered or at great risk of being so. Just like all far right folks, you deliberately confuse economic migrations and refugees. I can't say for Germany, but this is actually a thing in France. Welcoming massive amounts of immigrants from the MENA area and turning them and their children into a grateful constituency has been an official policy of the French Socialist Party for quite a bit of time now (albeit not an openly discussed one).
Many descendants from the Maghreb/African immigration are actually outraged at the PS for betraying their fights in the 70's and 80's with “SOS Racisme”. Under Mitterrand, the 1982-1984 strikes in the car industry were also delegitimized by some PS leaders because those workers were Muslims/migrants.
Now, what did you want those people to vote anyway in 2012? The far right is racist and says that they are the cause of most of France's problems; Sarkozy was openly hunting far-right votes and thus had a similar discourse; so naturally most of them voted to kick him out. I can assure you that many of them were very disappointed with what Hollande did afterwards.
The relations between the PS and the descendants of the Maghreb/African immigration are complicated (plus what happens at the local level isn't the same as the national scale), and certainly not mechanical. Those people have more chances to be disillusioned by politics, with a high(er) abstention as a result.
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
Yeah, except Terra Nova was created in 2008, and thus cannot be responsible for what happened in the 80's and 90's. The PS lost part of its “traditional” working class electorate because they abandoned socialism and converted to neoliberalism. Simple as that. Terra Nova indeed theorized this switch from the working class to urban middle/upper classes with various minorities, but (a) just because they set this goal doesn't mean that the party fulfilled it and (b) the PS has never been weaker since they stopped implementing left-wing policies, so obviously this strategy is a disaster. Giving up on lower classes also means that you give up on a good chunk of those minorities since they're over-represented there, so it's utterly stupid anyway. But if Terra Nova had a clue, they wouldn't theorize the exact opposite of what the left needs to do, right?
You can (and should) help refugees either directly in their home countries (not every part of Syria is war torn) or in neighboring countries (as intended by the Geneva convention). It's much more efficient money-wise than bringing them in Europe/North America, which means more people in need of help are getting help.
The vast majority of refugees already are in neighbouring countries, so I don't understand why you guys keep repeating this as if it wasn't the case?
+ Show Spoiler +
The Syrian "asylum seekers" who feel they are at risk of being slaughtered by government forces are likely to be sunni extremists. Thus I see no reason why we should bend over backwards to accommodate them in the west.
Sure, it is known that the Syrian government and its allies only repress/bomb jihadists...
|
On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders.
|
One other thing to note for clarity in the discussion is that not every "refugee" is coming from Syria. Can anyone point to Eritrea on a map?
I don't have the stats but I would be willing to bet $10 that the majority of people coming from muslim majority countries to the EU since the beginning of the Syrian war aren't even from Syria.
Edit: Its hard to measure in the first place because of the ability to forge passports.
|
|
|
On December 27 2016 15:06 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own. Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe.
The whole reason that place fell to shit is because of american interest in the oil pipeline that would go through the region. Deposing Assad is just a game of politics and money, and all of the western world is going to be paying for it by proxy.
|
On December 28 2016 03:03 Sent. wrote:Yay, I can post it again! Keep in mind most Syrian refugees made it to Europe before 2016 and this top 10 statistic is based on arrivals since january 2016. http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
Check the difference between Italy and Greece o.o
|
On December 28 2016 06:18 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 15:06 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own. Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe. The whole reason that place fell to shit is because of american interest in the oil pipeline that would go through the region. Deposing Assad is just a game of politics and money, and all of the western world is going to be paying for it by proxy.
Your argumentation would require for the population in the region to have no agency in regards to self-governance or regional dominance. Don't Iran and Russia want allies? Would not Saudi Arabia work towards removing those allies? Despite the US having a stake (I never even heard of that pipeline, source?) in every part of the world, there are far more reasons for the conflict. This specific argument was so ignorant, I had to collect myself for a bit.
|
On December 28 2016 03:03 Sent. wrote:Yay, I can post it again! Keep in mind most Syrian refugees made it to Europe before 2016 and this top 10 statistic is based on arrivals since january 2016. http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
I remember seeing that a while ago.
53% men.
17% women.
26% "children"
How many of those children are adult men and how long will they be on welfare for. How many have come by land?
|
On December 28 2016 07:38 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2016 06:18 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 15:06 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 14:31 Madkipz wrote:On December 27 2016 13:17 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 10:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 27 2016 07:29 mustaju wrote:On December 27 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the worst part of Europe's terrorist attacks isn't even that they happen. It is true that not all terrorist attacks will be prevented, and the fact that every major nation with a nonzero involvement in the entire Middle East situation has had high-profile terrorist attacks at home is a testament to that fact. While some learn better than others from the mistakes, they do happen in every country and that much is a fact. Europe's attacks are an interesting case, though, in that they seem to be quite decentralized. Random migrants, without any real coordination with terror groups, are encouraged to engage in terrorism. Any sane person can see the string of connections that leads to that turn of events.
This part I take issue with. There's lots of factors influencing terrorists, as can be seen during a similar wave of anarchist terrorism in the early 20th century. Reducing it to just migration or their cultural background, for example, would mean ignoring all people with a similar background who will not participate or condone in terrorism at any point in their life. I know that some will continue to take a "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack" and "anyone who opposes taking them are racists anyways" approach to criticism of a policy that has really been quite disastrous for, at the very least, European "unity."
In all honesty, though, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Those who saw the policy as an important humanitarian project see it as difficulties on the road to a better future, those who were against it see the current issues as vindication, and those in the middle just continue to oscillate back and forth between those positions. I'd say we are set to see the refugee issue continue to be a problem well into the future - and 2017 is probably going to be even more "2016" than 2016. I believe I argued that taking in refugees, when faced with a larger picture, is the least problematic of all the possible solutions at the moment, seeing how Europe is more likely to cope better with the refugees than other countries in the region. Your last point is largely mistaken. The proper way to help people in the middle east is to stop bombing them, stop selling them weapons and instead send money so they get help where they live, with people with whom they share culture, religion, language and values. Taking part in the destruction of a country, then bring citizens from said country into your own is a losing strategy that should be obvious to everyone. Think how the U.S. helped Japan after WWII, for example. Purely economically, it costs 12 times more to bring a refugee to the west than help them at their country. The left however prefers to bring them in because you can virtue signal your tolerance that way, and because inmigrants from 3rd world countries vote disproportionaly for the left and bigger government, so they are on board with changing the demographics of the nation to get more power. The argument for refugee intake certainly has more justifications than the supposed partisan gain that I severely doubt could be larger than marginal in a EU context. First, there's the issue of where actual refugees would go, if not to Europe. There are detention centers in Libya for example, which have rather inhumane conditions, and produce lots of human rights abuses, due to a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability. I maintain that it is dangerous for them in their country of origin regardless of whether or not the West does anything, and that they could easily become a too destabilizing issue in immediately neighbouring countries. As one of many counter-examples, consider the Yazidi population, which was routinely abused as sex slaves by ISIS or massacred in their villages and towns. There is literally nowhere else in the world which shares their customs and beliefs, which are widely different from both Sunni and Shia Islam. The Levant region is full of thousands of unique sects with centuries or millennia of history. As for Foreign aid and a lack of foreign intervention, I disagree with you profusely. Foreign aid can be a wonderful thing, but how do you imagine it solving the problem right now? The target-bombing of ISIS targets and arming of rebels is rooted in the idea that the majority of the opposition will not accept Assad remaining in power and that they want to hinder ISIS as much as possible. Just sending the opposition money would lead to that money either being intercepted and used by Assad or ISIS or be used by the opposition to purchase weaponry. It's not our problem, and just because Television and information about atrocities and crimes about humanity reaches us globally to inform us about what goes on half a world away does not make it our problem. Thousands of sects, customs and belief systems have died out before without our interference. You can't preserve and care for every single one because it will inevitably come at the cost of your own. Do you really think that the decision to completely disengage and let the whole region fall apart would have no negative repercussions for the wealthy region next-door? Small cultures that are forcefully destroyed leave behind a power vacuum, which creates future conflict. Right now, you can at least unite mostly everyone in East Syria/West Iraq against a common foe. The whole reason that place fell to shit is because of american interest in the oil pipeline that would go through the region. Deposing Assad is just a game of politics and money, and all of the western world is going to be paying for it by proxy. Your argumentation would require for the population in the region to have no agency in regards to self-governance or regional dominance. Don't Iran and Russia want allies? Would not Saudi Arabia work towards removing those allies? Despite the US having a stake (I never even heard of that pipeline, source?) in every part of the world, there are far more reasons for the conflict. This specific argument was so ignorant, I had to collect myself for a bit.
The Qatar - Turkey pipeline. It's not a secret. USA wants the pipeline to undercut Russian oil interests and to have greater influence over the oil markets. Russia got involved in Syria because... hey Murican dudes, don't undercut our economy you bastards. We like supplying people with oil. They secure more prominence in the ME with Iran and Assad after America & the Saudis are foiled in Syria.
Slightly more on the issue:
+ Show Spoiler +The Qatar-Turkey pipeline is a proposed natural gas pipeline running from the Iranian-Qatari South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field towards Turkey, where it could connect with the Nabucco pipeline to supply European customers as well as Turkey. One route to Turkey is via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria,[1][2] and another is through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.[3][4] Syria's rationale for rejecting the Qatar proposal was said to be "to protect the interests of [its] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."[1]
In 2012 an analyst cited by Ansa Mediterranean suggested that Qatar's involvement in the Syrian civil war was based in part on its desire to build a pipeline to Turkey through Syria:
"The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way. Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia's efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir's broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus." [5]
There's a lot more factors at play and various other major goals within the region but long story short everyone's privately pissed at Obama for losing the war in Syria and not taking out Assad because he has greatly weakened America foreign policy wise. That's why if Hillary was elected she would have doubled down and made a no fly zone and ramped up tensions with Russia. Hillary literally considers Obama to be a weak willed pussy who didn't have the American warrior spirit who just gave lip service to American Exceptionalism.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 28 2016 11:56 SK.Testie wrote:
Hillary literally considers Obama to be a weak willed pussy who didn't have the American warrior spirit who just gave lip service to American Exceptionalism.
Very, very far from the only one. There are far too many Americans who think that all US FP failures come about because the US didn't project enough strength - failing to realize that sometimes if you charge forward recklessly you're just going to trip into a whole lot of landmines that will blow up in your face.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On December 28 2016 11:56 SK.Testie wrote:The Qatar - Turkey pipeline. It's not a secret. USA wants the pipeline to undercut Russian oil interests and to have greater influence over the oil markets. Russia got involved in Syria because... hey Murican dudes, don't undercut our economy you bastards. We like supplying people with oil. They secure more prominence in the ME with Iran and Assad after America & the Saudis are foiled in Syria. Slightly more on the issue: + Show Spoiler +The Qatar-Turkey pipeline is a proposed natural gas pipeline running from the Iranian-Qatari South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field towards Turkey, where it could connect with the Nabucco pipeline to supply European customers as well as Turkey. One route to Turkey is via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria,[1][2] and another is through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.[3][4] Syria's rationale for rejecting the Qatar proposal was said to be "to protect the interests of [its] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."[1]
In 2012 an analyst cited by Ansa Mediterranean suggested that Qatar's involvement in the Syrian civil war was based in part on its desire to build a pipeline to Turkey through Syria:
"The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way. Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia's efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir's broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus." [5]
A quick research on the topic dismisses the Qatar-Turkey pipeline connection to the Syrian war as a conspiracy theory. Such claims require extraordinary proof, and there is little to be found. There was a lot of regime change (Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt) during the period that the Syrian Civil War started in and the friction of the Syrian populace has been the subject of numerous reputable news outlets.
Another thing to note is how none of my arguments were addressed that justified the current actions of the West on either humanitarian or regional stability grounds.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The big question about the Qatar-Turkey pipeline I always come back to is, why not just go through Iraq which is solidly beholden to the US interests?
|
On December 28 2016 12:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2016 11:56 SK.Testie wrote:
Hillary literally considers Obama to be a weak willed pussy who didn't have the American warrior spirit who just gave lip service to American Exceptionalism. Very, very far from the only one. There are far too many Americans who think that all US FP failures come about because the US didn't project enough strength - failing to realize that sometimes if you charge forward recklessly you're just going to trip into a whole lot of landmines that will blow up in your face.
First off before I go into this I'd like to preface this with saying: I don't necessarily think you're wrong. But I don't see how the situation could be worse for American interests and its allies. I value your input so you'd have to tell me what possible blow back America would have faced had they rushed things. I apologize in advance for the brunt and crude way I have written this post.
From what morsels of information I have it seems like if Obama wanted to do the best thing in the interests of his country he would have wiped Assad off the map before Russia ever got involved and brought their anti-aircraft along with them. It would have totally cut Russia off from stopping America because they would have gained control of the narrative.
From a strategic standpoint, had he done that he would have pleased all of his allies. Turkey - Qatar - Europe - Saudi Arabia - Israel. And he could have just went with the storyline: "We wiped him out because he barrel bombed his people." And then some "moderate rebels" would have taken over and made Syria a more dangerous place to live. But his allies would have been happy.
Which is why I chalk up the whole migration crisis as some fast-track corporate scheme. (Had America taken out Assad)
- USA gains influence and undercuts a major player (ISIS is small potatoes compared to Russia)
- EU gains oil and a population boost
- Turkey was already ready to be on the receiving end of that oil from Qatar
- SA may have gained a Wahhabi ally in Syria though it was far more likely to be a person of the Muslim Brotherhood, but still better than Assad for them
- Iran gets to understand that all their power in the region and influence has waned and is an uphill battle
- Russia gets knocked further down the totem pole
- US Hegemony continues
EU gets migrants and refugees (have to be a visionary here and suffer some terrorism and crime for even bigger long term profits/prosperity!) (Except not really)
- Cheap labour
- Pays for pensions
- Population boost - GDP growth to hide any stagnation (USA and illegal immigration say hi).
- Fixes the low birth rates
- Goes with an economic system that always needs to expand
Except in actuality the migrants and the refugees suck at being civilized currently.
- So the far right is typically saying, "Keep these barbarians and savages off my lawn"
- And the far left is saying, "lol down with capitalism. Enjoy your migrants and enrichment, you bourgeois imperialist barbarians! You earned this!"
- And the moderate right is saying, "Crime sure has gotten worse eh?"
- And the moderate left is saying, "Come on guys we know it's a struggle but we are all human. If you were in their situation you'd want help!"
- And then there's some people who think, "if we do things right maybe we can convert them to a more secular liberal way and eventually turn them into good and productive citizens if we just wrap them in enough love, tolerance, and expose them through the years to a better way to live life!"
So they want everyone to be visionaries and go with the corporate scheme that has made Europe a bloodier place. But they've done such a piss poor job of selling it (because they lied about it so much) that they've lost a great deal of trust from their people. What it was sold to their people as was, "refugees until war is over." And then it was, "open the door to the world and see what happens. Welcome the new Germans!"
So now it just seems like America lost and Europe is stuck with welfare lifers who don't really contribute a whole lot. They didn't even get the oil they were promised. So a very good policy would be some strict crime measures. If a migrant commits a crime, or 2-3 crimes they get immediate deportation. That way you ensure that you're at least keeping "the good ones."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The real chance to intervene was basically the "red line" situation. And honestly, there was a reason that that intervention ultimately did not happen.
First reason is simply that Russia brought their navy there. Yes, it was kind of a weak navy full of somewhat outdated ships that would not really have stood up to the US navy in the area, but it was more than enough to make any direct involvement quite dangerous (they did have modern rockets on them, they could have done some pretty decent damage if necessary). If intervention in Syria is a hard sell, think about how hard it would be to sell "war with Russia" to a war-weary public. It would not have ended well.
Second reason is that even if you can ultimately do it, it would probably have screwed over cooperation on the Iran deal. That was a huge problem and honestly the US was rightfully worried about the fact that if Russia were to be sufficiently pissed off it would be able to torpedo the entire deal.
Third reason is that it would have ended badly (terrorist proliferation a la Libya) and was severely unpopular. ISIS would have gone into Iraq and forced the US's hand there anyways, Russia might have intervened earlier to secure its ports on the border, and in general it could have ended quite badly. Also, just one more expensive obligation the US would keep on its balance sheet.
It is true that Russia gained a foothold in the Middle East due to US incompetence in organizing a coherent strategy. But not intervening was the correct choice because the result otherwise would have been an even bigger backlash. The incompetence was failing to think of a "and then what" after "we get rid of Assad."
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/380776Rfugissyriens.jpg)
