|
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. |
Four people have been arrested in and around the southern French city of Montpellier on suspicion of planning an imminent terrorist attack in France.
Police and judicial sources said those in custody included a 20-year-old man and his 16-year-old girlfriend, both known to authorites for connections with radical Islam, and said the attack had been due to take place in Paris.
Police found TATP explosives and other bomb-making materials in the man’s home, the sources said. The interior ministry confirmed that explosives had been found.
France, which will hold the first round of a presidential election in just over 10 weeks’ time, remains on high alert over possible Islamist militant attacks.
More than 230 people have died in a series of assaults since the beginning of 2015, and the country has been in a state of emergency since November that year.
“The initial indications are that an imminent attack on French soil has been thwarted,” the interior minister, Bruno Le Roux, said in the statement on Friday.
The government has said it foiled 17 attacks during 2016. In July, 86 people were killed when a man deliberately drove a truck into a crowd in the city of Nice.
On Friday, a makeshift memorial was being dismantled in Nice ahead of a carnival that was due to begin on Saturday.
Source
|
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_GERMANY_US_EAVESDROPPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-10-08-47-09 BERLIN (AP) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to testify before a German parliamentary panel investigating U.S. intelligence activities in the country.
The inquiry was launched a year after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed details of secret U.S. eavesdropping programs in 2013. The panel is investigating alleged eavesdropping in Germany by the U.S. National Security Agency and its relationship with German counterparts.
Reports that the NSA had listened in on German government phones - including Merkel's - prompted a diplomatic spat between Berlin and Washington that soured otherwise good relations with the Obama administration.
The panel's calendar listed Merkel's testimony for next Thursday.
Her chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, and her top intelligence adviser, Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, are due to testify before the cross-party panel on Monday. can that turn into a Benghazi for her?.
|
On February 10 2017 22:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Four people have been arrested in and around the southern French city of Montpellier on suspicion of planning an imminent terrorist attack in France.
Police and judicial sources said those in custody included a 20-year-old man and his 16-year-old girlfriend, both known to authorites for connections with radical Islam, and said the attack had been due to take place in Paris.
Police found TATP explosives and other bomb-making materials in the man’s home, the sources said. The interior ministry confirmed that explosives had been found.
France, which will hold the first round of a presidential election in just over 10 weeks’ time, remains on high alert over possible Islamist militant attacks.
More than 230 people have died in a series of assaults since the beginning of 2015, and the country has been in a state of emergency since November that year.
“The initial indications are that an imminent attack on French soil has been thwarted,” the interior minister, Bruno Le Roux, said in the statement on Friday.
The government has said it foiled 17 attacks during 2016. In July, 86 people were killed when a man deliberately drove a truck into a crowd in the city of Nice.
On Friday, a makeshift memorial was being dismantled in Nice ahead of a carnival that was due to begin on Saturday. Source
The Guardian missed this gem, which was reported on BBC: "According to AFP, the female suspect had been spotted on social networks saying she wanted to leave for the Syria-Iraq conflict zone or mount an attack in France instead." (Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38930201 )
Sounds like a bunch of doofuses that would've blown themselves up before they did any harm.
|
If riots happen in France the next days/weeks, here's the reason:
A black man accused French police of raping him. Police claim it was an accident.
By the time Théo arrived at a French emergency room on Feb. 2, he was covered in blood.
Doctors discovered that his primary injury had been caused by a police truncheon, one that had been forced inside the man’s rectum during a violent encounter with multiple officers in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a suburb north of Paris.
Théo, a 22-year-old French youth worker whose last name has not been released, maintained that the injury — which required major surgery to repair — was inflicted intentionally and that he was the victim of a horrific sexual assault.
More than a week later, after protests have roiled residents where the incident occurred, French investigators have reached an entirely different conclusion: The violent sodomy was accidental and occurred when the officer’s expandable baton happened to slip into the victim’s anus.
Protests were held across Paris and other parts of France following a violent encounter between Théo, a 22-year-old youth worker, and a group of police officers (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)
While noting that the violent encounter was “very serious,” the investigation by France’s national police force determined that the incident was “not a rape” because of the “unintentional character” of the penetration, according to Huffington Post's French edition.
Despite those conclusions, French Interior Minister Bruno Le Roux announced Sunday that one officer faces aggravated rape charges and three others have been charged with aggravated assault, according to the Independent. The men deny the charges and have been suspended from the police force, the paper reported.
(...) Source
|
"whoops, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to shove my nightstick up your ass"
Expandable batons just happen to slip into peoples' anuses all the time.
Seriously, I don't get it. Police have a tough job, I understand that. And they deserve some leeway for that. But "it was an accident"... if you believe that, I have some seaside property in Switzerland to sell you.
|
this guy gets totally gets it: http://budapestbeacon.com/featured-articles/romanias-protests-hungary-interview-g-m-tamas/44500 The Budapest Beacon asked Hungarian philosopher G. M. Tamás about the dynamics behind Romania’s protests and how he sees Hungary’s own struggle with corruption. Tamás, who was born in Cluj Napoca, Romania, was a dissident during the communist period and served as a member of the Hungarian parliament representing the Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) until 1994. Over the past two decades, he has identified as a Marxist philosopher, authoring books on political philosophy and social theory. Tamás has taught at Columbia, Oxford, The New School, Chicago, Georgetown, Yale, and other academic institutions. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna, Austria. if one is to oversimplify and pragmatize things, that stuff is right on the money. the rest+ Show Spoiler +As protests continue across Romania for the ninth day, the Hungarian leadership and media from across Hungary’s ideological spectrum are watching the country’s eastern neighbor closely.
Demonstrations broke out in Romania last Tuesday, when the government in Bucharest issued a decree that would have protected corrupt politicians. The decree – which the government withdrew under pressure on Sunday – would have exempted abuse-of-power offences involving sums below $48,000 from prosecution.
Hungarian media controlled by people close to the ruling party, as well as state-owned news agency MTI, are highlighting accusations that the Romanian protests are fueled by outside forces. Moreover, some media close to the Hungarian government are reporting that Romanian officials are “panicked” over Romania’s territorial integrity and Hungary’s strength as protests continue.
...
Much of the international media is praising Romania’s large-scale anti-corruption protests as a triumph for democracy. Do you agree with this assessment?
I don’t agree at all. The corruption is, of course, endemic and immense, but the anti-corruption campaign driven by a part of the non-elected bureaucracy from the prosecutors to the secret services acts in an arbitrary manner. The proofs are frequently testimonies by witnesses who would become the accused if they didn’t cut a deal with the prosecutors. Extremely elastic regulations are used in the courts on the basis of which the whole population could sit in jail.
But this is nothing. The demonstrations are fueled by the contempt of the young liberal middle class for the poor who are regarded as the electorate of the governing party, the PSD, considered old and decrepit and barbarian.
Also there is the old conflict between town and country, between ‘advanced’ Transylvania and ‘primitive’ Moldova and Wallachia, and so on. At the same time the government is repellent and the President is a liar. This is not a triumph of democracy, it’s a triumph for class struggle from above and a fight between thieving, law-breaking and selfish political clans that don’t resemble anything as much as each other.
Hungary’s government is highly corrupt, and yet there have been no significant anti-corruption protests in the country. Why do you think Hungarians, unlike their Romanian neighbors, are not going out into the streets to oppose corruption?
For the very simple reason that Hungary’s government is not corrupt in the usual sense of the word. Hungary’s mightiest leading politicians are not being bribed by crime syndicates or by ‘financial interests’, but they would simply hand out state property to their close allies and to themselves – legally! – and would nationalize assets and then re-privatize them for themselves: this is the system of royal donations of the late Middle Ages where you couldn’t tell which is the property of the Crown and which is the King’s personal, private property.
In Hungary today, the clear dividing line between public and private assets does not exist. Proper thefts by politicians, which of course occur, are insignificant. This is naturally far worse than anything happening in Romania from a moral point of view, but political opinion simply cannot put the finger on it.
This has nothing to do with the pre-1989 legacy. So-called communist leaders controlled huge assets but their families could not inherit them, they weren’t transformed into regular private property, which is now increasingly the case in Hungary.
The sums mentioned in the Romanian corruption trials are ridiculously tiny in comparison to what is changing hands in Hungary, but legally! That is an enormous difference.
But never fear, there is a silent hatred against Mr. Orbán’s government never seen before. This might come to real trouble one day.
The new “NOlimpia” campaign to hold a referendum on Budapest’s bid for the 2024 Olympics has received much attention in Hungary as a grassroots anti-corruption movement. Do you believe “NOlimpia” is an effective method of opposing government corruption? Can the movement lead to real change?
Again, this has very little to do with corruption. But it has to do with something else, equally important, to wit, with the irresponsible squandering of state resources for propaganda – for what are international professional sports competitions, especially in the case of team sports, but nationalist propaganda? The Budapest Olympics should never happen, and the organizers of the referendum effort are right that they shouldn’t. But it’s a very modest and courteous attempt that is focusing exclusively on the high cost and the bother of the Olympic Games, and eluding a number of real political problems.
Hungary has struggled with corruption since its transition to democracy. Why is it so difficult for the country to overcome this challenge?
Hungary has not struggled with corruption, not so you’d notice. All governments used taxpayers’ money for their own selfish purposes until corruption was transformed into official policy – men of the political Right were buying state companies with state bank credits on which they would default and then their debt is forgiven or made to disappear, but this was cumbersome. Now they are getting all this as gifts. People who did not have a pot to piss in five years ago are now buying castles, palaces, yachts, mountain retreats and island refuges – all offerings of a grateful Hungarian nation.
How could the country overcome this ‘challenge’ (is it a challenge, really?) when this is the political system for which the majority of voters have declared their unflinching sympathy? This is not a secret. It is not that people like it – everyone can see that it is obscene – but it is not clear what’s happening.
The so-called liberal Left, while in office, was truly corrupt. But the Orbán regime does not steal, this is a mistake; it has conquered and occupied the state which is not any longer a public institution in the modern sense, but – like in many old robber monarchies – a legal right to plunder. Princes have levied special taxes when their offspring were married; the obligations of the subjects were not to an abstract state, but to a ruling family, but they were nevertheless legal obligations. This is the system in Hungary and, probably, it cannot disappear in a peaceful, orderly, parliamentary way. If you think about it, it’s pretty frightening. now, if he would acknowledge the would be/could be existence of a 3rd party(the clueless idealist, the eye for an eye society) it would've been golden.
with that being said, if we had the Benghazi bullshit over here, Hillary would've been water-boarded in Guantanamo by now.
|
French economist and best-selling author Thomas Piketty is to join the team of left-wing candidate Benoit Hamon in the run-up to France's presidential election.
An organization chart displaying his name was unveiled on Saturday as Hamon inaugurated his campaign headquarters in central Paris.
Piketty will advise Hamon on subjects relating to the "European budget treaty", the chart showed, without giving further details. Campaign officials were not immediately available to comment on his role.
A professor with the London School of Economics, Piketty is the author of best-selling book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", which depicts wealth concentrations and distribution over the past 250 years.
France's Socialists picked Hamon as their candidate for president on Jan. 29, edging out former prime minister Manuel Valls.
Latest polls show centrist and former economy minister Emmanuel Macron winning the election.
A Ifop rolling poll published on Friday showed far-right Front National leader Marine Le Pen getting 26 percent of votes in the first round on April 23, followed by Macron with 20.5 percent of votes and conservative Francois Fillon with 17.5 percent.
Hamon is seen coming fourth with 15 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-piketty-idUSKBN15Q0OM
|
It's nice how the leave out the specific; Le Pen losing to everyone in the 2nd cycle. But it's not like that's relevent at all.. nono.
I think they significantly underestimate Hamon. Especially because IFOP's sample size is a whopping 1400, not very representative of an entire population.
|
On that note, why don't polls show fluctuation intervals ?
|
On February 13 2017 05:10 MyTHicaL wrote: It's nice how the leave out the specific; Le Pen losing to everyone in the 2nd cycle. But it's not like that's relevent at all.. nono.
I think they significantly underestimate Hamon. Especially because IFOP's sample size is a whopping 1400, not very representative of an entire population.
I would give Hamon a very thin chance, because Macron will inevitably suffer from his disconnection from party apparatuses and lack of MPs, and because Fillon will probably not recover and most likely underperform.
I still think he is a huge underdog.
Le Pen should lose comfortably against anyone at all in the second round, but then again, americans elected fucking Donald J Trump so who knows.
|
On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago.
Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey.
Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees.
|
On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees.
We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere.
|
On February 13 2017 07:23 OtherWorld wrote: On that note, why don't polls show fluctuation intervals ? Because then people would realize that they're often worthless/random, which would prevent polling companies from selling their products.
|
Methinks recent election trends throughout the world, France, UK, and the US included, indicate that some kind of regulation or moderation of polling data may be in order. The polling industry simply has far too much influence compared to the actual value of what they're putting out, which increasingly seems to be close to nil.
|
On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere.
I am confident that most refugees will go back home when the war is over.
But the war is a very complex 4+-way affair, with various foreign powers backing different sides. It is not just defeat ISIS and get peace, the war started between Assad and the rebels, and the Kurds are also fighting their own war. ISIS just makes it all even worse, but it it the side that is easier to blame for the west.
As far as I know, there are not even negotiations going on at the moment.
|
On February 13 2017 21:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. I am confident that most refugees will go back home when the war is over. But the war is a very complex 4+-way affair, with various foreign powers backing different sides. It is not just defeat ISIS and get peace, the war started between Assad and the rebels, and the Kurds are also fighting their own war. ISIS just makes it all even worse, but it it the side that is easier to blame for the west. As far as I know, there are not even negotiations going on at the moment. Assuming the Assad regime comes out on top when the war is over, it is likely to become paranoid with the coming back of refugees, many of whom opposed the government. I imagine the process may be difficult.
|
On February 13 2017 21:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. I am confident that most refugees will go back home when the war is over. But the war is a very complex 4+-way affair, with various foreign powers backing different sides. It is not just defeat ISIS and get peace, the war started between Assad and the rebels, and the Kurds are also fighting their own war. ISIS just makes it all even worse, but it it the side that is easier to blame for the west. As far as I know, there are not even negotiations going on at the moment.
I know fairly well how complex it is. My statement was a very succinct one, trying to encapsulate how the non-violent moderate opposition fled the country, leaving behind a bunch of fighters who are incapable of maintaining peace and are constantly fighting amongst each other (aka scumbags). Then there is the greater threat of ISIS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_peace_process#January_2017_.22Astana_Process.22_talks
|
On February 13 2017 21:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. I am confident that most refugees will go back home when the war is over. But the war is a very complex 4+-way affair, with various foreign powers backing different sides. It is not just defeat ISIS and get peace, the war started between Assad and the rebels, and the Kurds are also fighting their own war. ISIS just makes it all even worse, but it it the side that is easier to blame for the west. As far as I know, there are not even negotiations going on at the moment.
Why would they go back? A lot of them don't have anything to go back to except a pile of rubble that used to be a house, in the middle of a mostly destroyed city.
After rebuilding life from scratch in Europe and staying here a few years, you honestly think they will go back and rebuild from scratch again? I don't see that happening.
|
On February 13 2017 22:19 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 21:20 Slydie wrote:On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. I am confident that most refugees will go back home when the war is over. But the war is a very complex 4+-way affair, with various foreign powers backing different sides. It is not just defeat ISIS and get peace, the war started between Assad and the rebels, and the Kurds are also fighting their own war. ISIS just makes it all even worse, but it it the side that is easier to blame for the west. As far as I know, there are not even negotiations going on at the moment. Why would they go back? A lot of them don't have anything to go back to except a pile of rubble that used to be a house, in the middle of a mostly destroyed city. After rebuilding life from scratch in Europe and staying here a few years, you honestly think they will go back and rebuild from scratch again? I don't see that happening. Well, they might still have living relatives ; sometimes not very close ones, but still. Also, you're assuming they're all easily rebuild a life from scratch in Europe, which isn't necessarily true : you're not going to rebuild anything by being kept inside refugee camps, for example
|
On February 13 2017 18:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 18:15 Slydie wrote:On February 10 2017 22:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I think we missed the key, immigrant problem is not only about proving statistics. We need statistics to make a clear barriers and visualisation of a problem. And even tho all the problems in our society comes from cultural/wealth/religion/any other minor thing differences we need to make a specific "rules" for such problems, these rules should be able to be shifted fast enough in order for better people adaptation.
So we got two different groups of immigrants, the ones who looking for sanctuary let's say, and the others who is looking for an "american dream". While second group obviously would have better and more useful impact on locals overall, the first one may cause some issues and that's why it would be important to make a closer look. And if u want to prevent any kinds of threats from group #1 - u have to make it with specific regulation.
As an example: - country "A" creates special quota for refugees considering it's own population and country size and economical power let's say for a 500,000 of units for 5 years - these quota may be separated for refugees from different let's say continents - if any refugee stays employed for let's say 3 years and has no crime activity - gets citizenship so that clears overall quota for 1 unit In order to get to the sanctuary in county "A" any refugee needs to - prove it's identity (age, name, nationality, religion) - so this is the way to check for anything bad those person already made or related with - pass the language test on local/english language - in order for a smooth and faster integration to a society - pass specific culture exam or test that related to local country/region - if a refugee stays unepmployed withit let's say 6 moths - deportation - if a refugee commits the smallest crime within 12 months - deportation - making a specific flexible regulations for single females/pregnant females/disabled people
In other words this list looks like VISA conditions, but that's much less conditions needed in comparison to wealthy group 2 of immigrants i'd say.
That's just my thoughts but when I started to write down these examples it was easier than I though by the end. Providing some kind of these policies potentially helps any who involved, locals and refugees, cause those would be mostly "useful" refugees, the problem comes what to do with the rest who wasn't able to pass the tests.
I have a hard time reading that where these refugees are coming from is not even a part of the equation. People do not flee from their homes easily, there are some very good reasons why the Syrians come now and not 10 years ago. Parts of their country is absolute hell, and it is becoming more and more of a proxy war, with various foreigners fighting on their soil. And the number for Europe are extremely small! There are millions of refugees inside Syria, in Turkey and Lebanon. Europe should do a lot more! Many of the syrians are well educated, resourceful people. We should fight over who is getting the best ones, not how we should send them all back to the mega-camps in Turkey. Refugee camps are terrible places! You survive, but you do not live, and the only future there is to continue to be refugees. We should help them defeat ISIS in Syria, and send them all back to form a democratic opposition to Assad, who should be under close scrutiny for fair play. Educate the poor to help rebuild their agriculture and general infrastructure, etc. If we drain all the quality non-violent people out of Syria, there's just going to be scumbags looking to fight and abuse those too weak to flee from them and there will be hordes of children growing up in that kind of atmosphere. It's not like you will make Syria any better by letting those decent, non violent people live in rubbles and get killed by isis, a bloddthirsty dictator and russian bombardments.
At the end, it's a human problem. You have people fleeing war, fearing for their lives and their loved ones and going through incommensurable suffering. To answer that we shouldn't drain them and so they can get back there is a bit cynical.
|
|
|
|