|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 17 2015 03:35 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think your legal restrictions are what's keeping your democracy together. all legal structures can be subverted when the political mechanism lacks force to check it. changing some codes about when the police are allowed to take action and level of scrutiny etc are well justified given the situation.
it's important to still value liberty etc but there's quite a bit of space to fit a functional intelligence and security system inside. what's keeping you safe is not the difference of your laws with say, russia, but the difference of you.
You don't think that democracy is not a democracy when it's not a democracy ?
A democracy is not defined by the vote, nor by "freedom". But it is defined by the existence of institutional means through which the people decide what has to be done, and to permit that, you need a separation of power, to prevent one guy to gain the entire power and keep it to himself. It's not really sky rocket science.
Our constitution already give plenty of means for the president to gain almost total power - for a limited time. There is the article 16 (that give full power to the president for a short time if needed), the article 36 (with the "state of siege" - that exist since 1791 !) and the state of urgency (ratified in 1955) ; three process that basically do the same thing with different degree. Hollande, when he was in the opposition, actually asked for the Nicolas Sarkozy to remove the article 16 from the constitution, an article put there by De Gaulle who believed the president of the IIIrd republic had not enough power to face the second world war.
Somehow even that is not enough. In fact, Hollande knows full well that his proposition will have no positive impact on fighting against ISIS - the most basic things to fight against ISIS were not done before... He does that to make the people believe he is the father of the nation, the man in charge, that he has control : he is doing that for electoral purposes.
Hollande is the worst president of the history of France.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't really know how french law works at all but there may be some expediency interests involved. it may even be a symbolic thing, a show of executive will or strength that is designed to cover his ass but i don't see this as an existential threat to democracy per se. it's symbolic just as your location of democracy within legal design is symbolic. i am rather saying the important safeguard is genuine recognition of liberal values. of course, your outrage is part of a reflection of this value and i am not opposed to it per se. just saying that the real harm may not be large.
you can bash hollande however much you want, but the codes i am interested in discussing are those pertaining to police actions upon information. a discretion of this kind is a substantive expansion of state power, but whether it is abusive lays in the execution of the programs. how narrowly targeted they are, actual incidents of abuse etc.
|
On November 17 2015 03:48 oneofthem wrote:
i don't really know how french law works at all but there may be some expediency interests involved. it may even be a symbolic thing, a show of executive will or strength that is designed to cover his ass but i don't see this as an existential threat to democracy per se. it's symbolic just as your location of democracy within legal design is symbolic.
the codes i am interested in discussing are those pertaining to police actions upon information. a discretion of this kind is a substantive expansion of state power, but whether it is abusive lays in the execution of the programs. how narrowly targeted they are, actual incidents of abuse etc.
The state of urgency already basically give the authority to the police to do many things without the need of any judge or judicial power - perquisition, assignation at residency, with no control at all.
The state of siege give full power to the military, and basically suspend democracy in a localized area.
you can bash hollande however much you want
This fat dude don't need me to bash him, he is already hated by anything that has a brain in France.
Edit to remain civil.
|
On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started.
The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
Read the interview!
There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#Afghanistan
The Taliban developed from the mujahideen.
|
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength?
|
On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength?
The second part. It won't guarantee anything. The nations can work security for refugees coming in, but denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. The refugees are fleeing ISIS.
|
On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? The second part. It won't guarantee anything. The nations can work security for refugees coming in, but denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. The refugees are fleeing ISIS.
Majority of syrian refugees are fleeing from the Assad regime and not from the Islamic State.
https://www.adoptrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pr_survey_whydosyriansfleesyria.pdf
And i highely doubt that the Islamic State cares too much what we do in Europe, they are interested in drawing more parties into the armed conflict but i doubt they care about national politcs, they'll always find something to use as propagandatool
|
On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants.
Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on?
|
On November 17 2015 03:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 01:27 Oshuy wrote:On November 17 2015 00:58 WhiteDog wrote:
Hollande basically decided to change the political regime. At this point is it a democracy anymore ? We already had what was needed to face the terrorist attack... the constitution was written by people who made the second world war, they knew what was needed. Yet this little midget asked for a change, for more security.
And what the hell he is specifically targetting the bi nationals. It's democracy as long as the guy making nonsensical decisions was voted in place and can be voted out next term and as long as he gets the required 2/3 majority or referendum vote for his change  You have a very weak definition of a democracy. Learning a little about the constitution, the division of power and the history of our democracy could do you some good : a political system is not really a democracy with the vote only. Quite the opposite in fact the first democracy were very suspicious with the vote. Not to mention Hollande has less than 20 % of positive opinion, not really the kind of guy that should be able to change our constitution on a whim.
Nice try The fact that he can propose something doesn't hurt is what I meant. I don't think the 5th was designed as a democracy if that is the question (but I don't think a democracy is a good thing in most cases anyway).
|
On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? The second part. It won't guarantee anything. The nations can work security for refugees coming in, but denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. The refugees are fleeing ISIS.
While I do wish to completely agree with you, there was one argument that made me thinking:
Very often terrorists who act in western countries are recruited from locals. (See the bombings in Paris.) Those are people who hardly have real chances in life, being unemployed or have very little access to education. Normally, these are not the refugees right now that try to reach europe at the moment, but the second or third generations of immigrants.
That said, there is the sad truth that closing the borders, as bad as this sounds, might limit these problems as less migrants means less future second or third generation immigrants who might be susceptible to recruition by extremists.
I conclude the need for proper integration is now greather than ever. We Europeans need to do that better than in the past.
|
On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen.
This is all taking a very simplistic view on a complex subject.
First of all, the Taliban aren't really the Mujahadeen. The Taliban were a reaction to the Mujahadeen and years of instability in Afghanistan, albeit comprised in part by former members of the Mujahadeen.
As for Zbiginew Brzezinski, he has since dialed back the certainty of those claims. Some in the Carter administration could foresee a Soviet intervention and hoped the Soviets would get their own Vietnam, but many others saw the non-lethal aide provided as simply a means to support legitimate opposition, and they actually hoped to avoid a Soviet intervention.
Clearly with hindsight there are things the US could have done differently to achieve their goals and minimize the rise of islamist fundamentalism, and some things never needed hindsight, like choosing not to invade Iraq. But many people seem to assume the US is always some kind of puppetmaster when it is not. Pakistan had already been supporting opposition elements in Afghanistan when the US got involved. Pakistan had been pursuing a policy of islamisation in its own country for awhile already. The US had limited leverage over Pakistan, and made what in retrospect seems a mistake in assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
|
Notably, the leader of the mujahadeen/ Northern Front, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was assassinated by the Taliban 2 days before 9/11.
|
On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on?
They are selling the idea that the west is overwhelming against Muslims and wants to destroy them. A rejection of ALL refugees(per the post I responded to) on the simple bases that they MIGHT be terrorists would play into the narrative. And the rejected people feeling the Syria in droves would be a place for them to recruit.
Note: This is not an argument that refugee system shouldn’t be looked at and reviewed. I was responding to the idea of rejecting ALL refugees.
|
On November 17 2015 05:12 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. This is all taking a very simplistic view on a complex subject. First of all, the Taliban aren't really the Mujahadeen. The Taliban were a reaction to the Mujahadeen and years of instability in Afghanistan, albeit comprised in part by former members of the Mujahadeen. As for Zbiginew Brzezinski, he has since dialed back the certainty of those claims. Some in the Carter administration could foresee a Soviet intervention and hoped the Soviets would get their own Vietnam, but many others saw the non-lethal aide provided as simply a means to support legitimate opposition, and they actually hoped to avoid a Soviet intervention.
Clearly with hindsight there are things the US could have done differently to achieve their goals and minimize the rise of islamist fundamentalism, and some things never needed hindsight, like choosing not to invade Iraq. But many people seem to assume the US is always some kind of puppetmaster when it is not. Pakistan had already been supporting opposition elements in Afghanistan when the US got involved. Pakistan had been pursuing a policy of islamisation in its own country for awhile already. The US had limited leverage over Pakistan, and made what in retrospect seems a mistake in assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Woaoo hold on. The fuck are you talking about ?
Pakistan didnt have the resources to do the things it did to help the Mujahideen on its own. Sure they did alot, they totally trained and supported the Mujahideen but that was primarily because the US pretty much baited a millitary general into causing a coup against Bhutto who was the most popularly elected democratic leader Pakistan has ever had and told the US to fuck off with meddling in the subcontinent. He had his own failings and problems but atleast he was a democratic leader.
This is what Bhutto used to do to Western powers
And this is the kind of society we had. Super liberal and super chill.
And a few years later Afghanistan happened, the fucking cancer Zia ul Huq pretty much took over the country, funded by recycled petro dollars and direct US aid, he paid off all high ranking generals and bureaucrats with said money and then your islamization took over for the next decade and is generally accepted as the darkest period in our country.
Pakistan is in no way pursuing an Islamization policy, there was no Islamization whatsoever in the 90s post Zia at all, and then 9/11 happened and the same dictator shit and peddling US dollars to prop up dictators. Neither Zia nor Musharraf would have have survived more than a couple of years if they hadnt gotten the copious amounts of foreign funding that they did. And it got us stuck with a couple million refugees (Pakistan is a bit larger than texas), mujahideen that had been left with nothing to do and a radiclized society in certain areas where the salafist teachings had been festering.
Doesnt help that its easier for the common guy to agree with the salafist cunts as opposed to american cunts when drones and shit are killing innocents all the time. At the end of the day we cleaned up most of the shit ourselves when the army realised they had to take down its own monster baby, and its still not even close to finished.
Granted we are party to this in terms of the fact that we could do nothing to stop Millitary dictators from taking over and then playing America's bitch. Nor have we been able to effectively curtail Islamization in madrassahs but at the end of the day the political mismanagement has meant that heavily funded salafist/wahabist propaganda and teaching is rampant and difficult to control because we are so fucked no one even knows where to start.
Im not saying we arent responsible for some of the clusterfuck, our army tried to control the Taliban and used the Mujahideen to fuck with India in Kashmir + Show Spoiler +(mostly because they are assholes, but also because these fighters needed to do something) mostly because of the distrust after the post Soviet "aight guys goodjob, take care we gonna bounce")
Im sorry but even if the US hasnt been puppet master they have been pretty good at arm twisting and preying on vulnerabilities. Its fair to say that these countrieshave themselves to blame (mainly Iran during Mussadaq and Pakistan), but Iraq, and Afghanistan is all on the US and friends and there really isnt any other way about it, nor does it absolve their involvement in meddling with Pakistan and Iran. Heck Iran had the most adverse possible reaction and you got stuck with the Ayatollahs.
I usually dont like pointing this stuff out because it sounds like anti american hysteria and the US has been great to me (up until they told me to leave after 10 years anyway, yay Canada) but its really annoying to see people just offhandedly peddle bullshit because of some second hand knowledge and talk so carelessly about things they have no idea about.
|
On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on?
Terrorists want to split society so they get a larger pool of potential recruits and the willingness to commit attacks increases. The killing is just a means to an end. Abusing the refugee situation for political issues right now plays into their narrative.
|
On November 16 2015 23:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 21:58 FreeZEternal wrote:
Looks like a lot of states are out right banning refugees in the US. We have 50 states and a couple of them will do it, but then others will respond by taking in more refugees. The great cycle of politics.
MA is joining this group now, who could have thought, MA!
|
On November 17 2015 06:06 FreeZEternal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 23:51 Plansix wrote:On November 16 2015 21:58 FreeZEternal wrote:
Looks like a lot of states are out right banning refugees in the US. We have 50 states and a couple of them will do it, but then others will respond by taking in more refugees. The great cycle of politics. MA is joining this group now, who could have thought, MA!
He specifically said he wanted to know more about the vetting program before accepting refugees, but isn't terrible. So he said "no, with the current information I have."
|
On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen.
Taliban actually developed from students at very radical schools in the Kandahar area just after the Soviets left Afghanistan, the muhajideen created the environment where such a movement could be born and flourish but most of the non-Afghan muhajideen went back home after the war against the USSR ended. A lot of the ones the US had the most contact with ended up in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has some controversial opinions in the eyes of the larger ex-intelligence/semi-retired 'advisor' community, he's in the the US is really much more powerful and pulling many more strings than most people think camp.
The idea that he and Jimmy Carter 'started' the muhajideen (which may just be Counterpunch putting that eye-catching language in the link to get clicks) is pretty silly. The US did not buy weapons to send to the muhajideen until after the Soviets invaded. Even at the height of the war the CIA almost always used Pakistani intelligence as a middleman to send weapons and money to muhajideen. There was basically no prep work done by the CIA or anyone else American to have this network of fighters ready to go from day one when the Soviets invaded (according to American plan, if you believe this). If anyone started the muhajideen other than themselves, it was Pakistani intelligence. Since independence one of Pakistan's main foreign policy goals has always been to have Afghanistan either in alliance with Pakistan or controlled by Pakistan or neutralized by Pakistan, to make sure nothing crazy could happen with Afghanistan somehow ending up on the other side in the always expected next war with India. Now that that war is a little less expected they want to control as many of the armed groups as they can and keep Afghanistan on the edge but never quite going over. That keeps Afghanistan from ever presenting a possible strategic threat to Pakistan's rear and it helps occupy the attention of the armed groups along the border (most of them fighting under the umbrella of the Pakistani Taliban) that also really don't like the Pakistani government. Anything that happens in Afghanistan that Pakistan can take advantage of to make Afghan groups friendly towards and dependent on Pakistan, Pakistan is going to take advantage of.
The US took advantage of the muhajideen, create them? No.
Pakistan is in no way pursuing an Islamization policy,
Which is why the Afghan Taliban is headquartered in Pakistan now and why there are significant Afghanistan/Pakistani Taliban presences in a lot of Pakistani cities nowhere near the border. And why groups like the Haqqanis on the border were basically left alone by Pakistan for around ten years because they were fighting Americans in Afghanistan and not attacking Pakistan. Until they started attacking Pakistan too. The Haqqanis are kind of a bad example because they've always kept their main focus on Afghanistan but they are fully allied with other Pakistani Taliban groups that do spend their effort on fighting Pakistan instead of in Afghanistan. Pakistan tried playing a game on the border the way it has before and it lost this time.
Pakistan has way more responsibility for the existence of a large network of armed and violent jihadi revolutionaries on its territory than you want to admit. It wasn't US meddling that kept the ISI riddled with more and more Islamists who turned a blind eye or actively helped groups that now fight against Pakistan the entire time from the 80s to the present and the rot definitely hasn't all been cleaned up.
|
On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on?
At a guess, this is based on the following argument:
1. ISIS gets stronger (recruitment, domestic support, funding) if anti-Western sentiment grows stronger.
2. If people seeking refuge in the West get denied asylum, they feel more anti-Western sentiment (i.e. anti-Western sentiment grows stronger).
--
Therefore, ISIS gets stronger if people seeking refuge in the West get denied asylum.
Now, if you agree with those premises, then the attacks on France take on a particularly sinister significance. Say ISIS themselves agree with this argument. They attack France, knowing refugees will take the blame. Refugees take the blame, they get denied asylum. They get denied asylum, anti-Western sentiment grows. And, according once again to the above argument, as anti-Western sentiment grows, ISIS gets stronger.
+ Show Spoiler +Pretty sure my logic works out there if you convert all those to proper conditional statements, but I'm all rusty so correct me if I messed up.
|
On November 17 2015 06:56 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 04:51 RuiBarbO wrote:
So anti-refugee movements in Europe in the U.S. get stronger in the wake of that thing this thread is supposed to be about. My question: is denying entry to all refugees really going to guarantee long-term security, or might it foster increased anti-Western sentiment of the sort from which ISIS draws strength? denying all of them is pretty much exactly what ISIS wants. Could you elaborate as to what you're basing this on? At a guess, this is based on the following argument: 1. ISIS gets stronger (recruitment, domestic support, funding) if anti-Western sentiment grows stronger. 2. If people seeking refuge in the West get denied asylum, they feel more anti-Western sentiment (i.e. anti-Western sentiment grows stronger). -- Therefore, ISIS gets stronger if people seeking refuge in the West get denied asylum. Now, if you agree with those premises, then the attacks on France take on a particularly sinister significance. Say ISIS themselves agree with this argument. They attack France, knowing refugees will take the blame. Refugees take the blame, they get denied asylum. They get denied asylum, anti-Western sentiment grows. And, according once again to the above argument, as anti-Western sentiment grows, ISIS gets stronger. + Show Spoiler +Pretty sure my logic works out there if you convert all those to proper conditional statements, but I'm all rusty so correct me if I messed up.
This line of thought has been put forward since before we invaded Iraq. Problem was people thought/think people like Bill Krystal and Rummy had a clue (presuming they didn't do it for the $ knowing it would be a shit show that would feed trillions of dollars into the military industrial complex).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
