Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Eugen-Florin on November 14, 2015, 12:57:02 am
-
The images from Paris are speaking so powerful about the world today. Is there a way to stop all the madness? Is there hope?
-
What has this got to do with art?
-
The images from Paris are speaking so powerful about the world today. Is there a way to stop all the madness? Is there hope?
This should probably be in "Coffee Corner".
My heart goes out to the people of Paris, where I travel to frequently.
Brian
-
Hi.
I think we all have a bit of our hearts and minds in Paris, right now.
Photography has always played an important part in telling the story. It may not be art, but is a part of past, present and future photography.
Best regards
Erik
-
The images from Paris are speaking so powerful about the world today. Is there a way to stop all the madness? Is there hope?
but of course - stop undermining the status quo or face the payday...
-
Is there hope?
No. Not as long as the feckless West continues to pussyfoot around the I word. The President of the USA cannot even get himself to utter it. Hopefully President Trump will.
-
Taken from "Little Bird" on tumblr, but I've seen it in a few places:
-
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
-
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
2 words...Crusades Redux!
-
No. Not as long as the feckless West continues to pussyfoot around the I word. The President of the USA cannot even get himself to utter it. Hopefully President Trump will.
Our dear leader once again "declined to speculate on who was responsible for the attacks." Apparently, he was struggling with acronyms. He tried RNC, but was told not likely. How about NRA? Nope. Aids were desperately showing four fingers, as in "four-letter acronym", but he was like "Nah... junior varsity team couldn't do that. But since they were definitely some people with guns, we must ban guns, totally and immediately, so that such an attack could never happen again."
-
Hi Slobodan,
I can share your feelings, but I don't think it helps. These networks are hard to attack, and each successful attack just creates a lot of new followers. I think that these networks need to be deprived of support. We need a planet that disapproves terrorism, regardless if it is left, right, Christian, Moslem, friend or foe. Without fundings they will crumble.
Fact is that US citizens did support terrorists in Britain, namely IRA. Once US (non government) support was stopped, IRA went into drug trafficking to support it's operations but they finally entered peace talks with Britain. Hopefully that issue is solved.
I do believe in firm and decisive action, but it needs to be firm and decisive. I don't see that happen and I am not sure we have the resources to do that, at least not if we respect our humanitarian values.
What I think to need is to deprive those organisations of all financial support. Zero tolerance for terrorists. No country on the planet should offer a free heaven or support for terrorist, or face real consequences.
My thoughts on that issue…
Erik
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
-
... We need a planet that...
And how do we create such an ideal world? We've had several millennia of attempts and yet... In the meantime, how about stopping fighting those who fight them? Stopping toppling regimes who kept peace within their borders, however imperfect such regimes might have been? Stopping premature withdrawals from regimes we destabilized and leaving power vacuum for them to fill? And how about going back in and finish what we started?
-
France has been prosecuting a war in the middle east, that war has returned to Paris.
War is not a video game.
-
Hi,
I don't know. But many of the major states are facing terrorism. US, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia,India, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt and many others face the same threat, essentially. Is it not feasible to join efforts?
Best regards
Erik
And how do we create such an ideal world? We've had several millennia of attempts and yet... In the meantime, how about stopping fighting those who fight them? Stopping toppling regimes who kept peace within their borders, however imperfect such regimes might have been? Stopping premature withdrawals from regimes we destabilized and leaving power vacuum for them to fill? And how about going back in and finish what we started?
-
Stopping premature withdrawals from regimes we destabilized
stop destabilizing in the first place...
-
Saudi Arabia
this is funny when you list the bloody dictatorship like SA here... you missed Qatar and others though.
-
If IS would be tolerant for less radical muslims and christians in the area and would not destroy cultural heritage sites there would be no war on IS.
Unfortunately they are not behaving that way and get attacked, so they strike back with heartbreaking actions like this one in Paris.
This has nothing to do with faith or religion, but just with power hungry war lords, but if they continue this way my belief is they will be destroyed.
-
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
Wipe whom off the face of the earth? The suicide bombers? They did that themselves. The place where they came from? It seems that they came from the outskirts of Paris. Muslims? First, there are probably 100s of millions of muslims who disapprove of the attacks and, second, we already tried to wipe off a religion in Europe about 70 years ago and found it not to be quite compatible with our democratic values, so we don't do that any more.
Or do you mean we should wipe off that pseudostate religious creation between Syria, Turkey and Irak? It seems that we are already bombing them, but it also seems that is just what is motivating some light headed people within our borders to retaliate. And I don't think we can hit them much harder than we are doing now.
The situation is probably a little bit more complex than you think. Did you notice the price of oil lately? ::)
-
stop destabilizing in the first place...
Which is what I said in the sentence preceding the one you quoted.
-
Wipe whom off...
Cute.
But no, most reasonable readers would understand that I clearly had in mind ISIS. And no, bombing is not the best or only thing we could do.
-
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
It worked so well as a response to 9/11. You might reflect on who are "they", how you might identify "them", and how it might relate to the US's most important provider of oil.
I'm out.
-
When but two remain on devastated and scorched earth, the universe will not likely need to wait long in the measure of time before the sound of the first snarl...
-
Stop crying and stop praying. Do something. Wipe them off the face of the Earth.
+1
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The Romans could teach us a thing or two. They were savage with their enemies and generous with their allies.
The west is neither. If you play ball with us we still take all your stuff and make you an indentured servant. And we're not particularly savage to our enemies.
This is in part because war is good business, and nobody in power ever wants the status quo to change.
-
And God created mankind in his own image...certainly did a bang-up job of it...downhill ever since.
Name any time in the history of mankind that we did not kill each other over something as obscure as...
tribal affiliation/skin color/religion/whatnot. It's ingrained/genetic. Altruistic behavior is absent in today's world...for the most part.
-
The Romans could teach us a thing or two. They were savage with their enemies and generous with their allies.
The west is neither. If you play ball with us we still take all your stuff and make you an indentured servant. And we're not particularly savage to our enemies.
This is in part because war is good business, and nobody in power ever wants the status quo to change.
Is 'the west' an empire, if so who is the emperor?
-
Cute.
But no, most reasonable readers would understand that I clearly had in mind ISIS. And no, bombing is not the best or only thing we could do.
I understood that. I was just trying to make you understand that ISIS had a lot less to do with that attack that you thought. You think I am cute, I think you are naive. And you did not bother to look for the price of oil. May I suggest you look into the beginning of wahhabism instead? Why is Iran bombing ISIS?
OK. This is a photography forum and I cannot expect the average member to have knowledge of the history of the middle east or even to have knowledge of the social problems of France. But, please, try to get your info from something else than mainstream TV and newspapers. Get a few history books about the middle east or even just read the various wikipedia articles about the subject.
There. This is a photography forum, so maybe some photographic work about the middle east can educate you. Try this site and tell me what you see: http://www.joeyl.com/portfolio/category/guerrilla-fighters-of-kurdistan (http://www.joeyl.com/portfolio/category/guerrilla-fighters-of-kurdistan).
-
I might submit that Mohammad recognized the futility of middle eastern civilization and tried to incorporate a medieval empire.
-
... to make you understand...I think you are naive... you did not bother to look... May I suggest you look ...
... I cannot expect the average member to have knowledge of the history of the middle east or even to have knowledge of the social problems of France. But, please, try to get your info from something else than mainstream TV and newspapers. Get a few history books about the middle east or even just read the various wikipedia articles about the subject.
...educate you...
Thanks for the lecturing and patronizing tone. Since I post under my real name, my background is just a few clicks away online, so anyone can see how "uneducated" or "naive" I might be. For what it is worth, I lived, worked or visited 30+ countries on three continents. And sorry, I do not have a PhD in googling or Wikipedia, though I have some other, less reputable advanced degrees.
But all that doesn't really matter. So how about you simply state your point, instead of just mocking mine?
What's your point?
-
Ten years ago there was no ISIS. What was done incorrectly that helped give rise to them?
What is the purpose of western powers being in Syria, Iraq, Afgnanistan, etc? What's the end game of all the military interventions? What are we hoping to accomplish and how are our actions contributing to that end game?
We (the west and others) have been dropping bombs and shooting there for a few decades now (not to say a century). How are those places better now? How are we safer? Who benefits from it all?
I never hear these question asked, and they seem important to me. Last night I watched some of the CBC reportage about the Paris attacks. There was interview after interview with experts and ex-CSIS operatives, all the usual questions, and there was lots of the usual security blather that you always hear. It was a news program, of course, not an analysis program, but all the interviews sounded to me like an informercial for the security industry, private and public. Not one reporter or anchor asked why, after pouring lots of cash into the security apparatus for at least since 9/11, we seemingly aren't any safer now? What is it that we're doing wrong? Shouldn't we try to figure that out?
I can't help but notice the similarities of the middle-east "situation" to the so-called war on drugs. Been going on for a while now, the drug gangs are bigger, richer and more vicious, and there has never been even a hint of a decrease in drug trafficking. I'm not seeing any progress in either sphere, and my gut tells me that continuing to behave as we have been doing will not work any better in the future than in the past.
-
Ten years ago there was no ISIS. What was done incorrectly that helped give rise to them?
What is the purpose of western powers being in Syria, Iraq, Afgnanistan, etc? What's the end game of all the military interventions? What are we hoping to accomplish and how are our actions contributing to that end game?
We (the west and others) have been dropping bombs and shooting there for a few decades now (not to say a century). How are those places better now? How are we safer? Who benefits from it all?
I never hear these question asked, and they seem important to me. Last night I watched some of the CBC reportage about the Paris attacks. There was interview after interview with experts and ex-CSIS operatives, all the usual questions, and there was lots of the usual security blather that you always hear. It was a news program, of course, not an analysis program, but all the interviews sounded to me like an informercial for the security industry, private and public. Not one reporter or anchor asked why, after pouring lots of cash into the security apparatus for at least since 9/11, we seemingly aren't any safer now? What is it that we're doing wrong? Shouldn't we try to figure that out?
I can't help but notice the similarities of the middle-east "situation" to the so-called war on drugs. Been going on for a while now, the drug gangs are bigger, richer and more vicious, and there has never been even a hint of a decrease in drug trafficking. I'm not seeing any progress in either sphere, and my gut tells me that continuing to behave as we have been doing will not work any better in the future than in the past.
I asked on here a while back just how may people would find themselves unemployed if the war on terror was declared as being won, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
It's big business alright and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
-
According to Wikipedia there are 5 major religions in the world plus 11 minor ones.
There is but one that craves the middle ages to the point that they want the world to revert backwards in time
and want to kill the rest of us to accomplish their goals.
Should we not begin to better arm them and allow them to start with themselves...no wait, that could lead to Armageddon.
-
I count two, actually, which have violent atavistic sects which do not represent the mainstream but claim to loudly enough to alter the overall impression one gets.
-
I think a lot of Americans are tired of spending our son's and daughter's blood and money on every problem in the world. Maybe the French should do it for awhile.
-
Ten years ago there was no ISIS. What was done incorrectly that helped give rise to them?...
The last seven of which were under the Junior Varsity Team Trainer's watch.
-
Thanks for the lecturing and patronizing tone. Since I post under my real name, my background is just a few clicks away online, so anyone can see how "uneducated" or "naive" I might be. For what it is worth, I lived, worked or visited 30+ countries on three continents. And sorry, I do not have a PhD in googling or Wikipedia, though I have some other, less reputable advanced degrees.
But all that doesn't really matter. So how about you simply state your point, instead of just mocking mine?
What's your point?
You are the one advocating solutions taken out a Silvester Stallone movie here, not me. My point is just that people, not only you, should try to learn a bit about the history of the middle east to understand better what is going on. Obviously you are not interested, so I'll leave the discussion now.
-
Hi,
What I talk about stopping supplies to terrorist organisations and groups. Any such effort must involve those states that act as sponsor states.
Well, checking out some articles, it seems that ISIS really has no friends in the region. This article on BBC essentially say that they are self financed: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253
As it seems that nobody in the region supports ISIS, it may be very difficult to stop their supplies. It seems that they get financing by trading oil using murky channels. Some action may be possible in the banking sector.
I used to say that when the spirit is out of the bottle it is impossible to put it back.
Best regards
Erik
this is funny when you list the bloody dictatorship like SA here... you missed Qatar and others though.
-
According to Wikipedia there are 5 major religions in the world plus 11 minor ones.
There is but one that craves the middle ages to the point that they want the world to revert backwards in time
and want to kill the rest of us to accomplish their goals.
Should we not begin to better arm them and allow them to start with themselves...no wait, that could lead to Armageddon.
As I look around and note how society in the west is becoming increasingly unequal and more people than ever are facing poverty and a declining standard of living it might be argued that they are just being honest about it.
-
A problem arises when a country colonises other countries, especially over a long period of time. The other countries don't like it and if they get the chance to get revenge then they or groups that support them seek revenge. Unfortunately the colonial leaders usually don't suffer but as in this case ordinary people. I don't see a solution to this. France was one of the worst colonial powers. They interfered in Vietnam before the US did.
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
-
As I look around and note how society in the west is becoming increasingly unequal and more people than ever are facing poverty and a declining standard of living it might be argued that they are just being honest about it.
God only knows where you are looking.
1. Western society is not becoming increasingly unequal; on the contrary, excluding the trivial number of ludicrously wealthy, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it has ever been.
2. It is not true that "more people than ever are facing poverty"; quite the reverse. The problem is with definition: if you define "poverty" relative to average wealth, then it becomes impossible ever to eradicate, and you are left with the ridiculous notion that a wealthy person who leaves the country decreases the number in "poverty" simply by leaving.
3. Standards of living are not declining.
Other than that, your "analysis" is spot on.
Jeremy
-
God only knows where you are looking.
1. Western society is not becoming increasingly unequal; on the contrary, excluding the trivial number of ludicrously wealthy, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it has ever been.
2. It is not true that "more people than ever are facing poverty"; quite the reverse. The problem is with definition: if you define "poverty" relative to average wealth, then it becomes impossible ever to eradicate, and you are left with the ridiculous notion that a wealthy person who leaves the country decreases the number in "poverty" simply by leaving.
More food banks makes your statement seem ludicrous? :(
-
I think a lot of Americans are tired of spending our son's and daughter's blood and money on every problem in the world. Maybe the French should do it for awhile.
Absolutely. Considering that the war in Irak is the deciding event that set in motion the complex changes that resulted in what happened 2 days ago in Paris, I believe that most objective readers would agree that stopping sending troops abroad the way it has been done the past 15 years is overall a very good idea.
This doesn't remove any of the gratitude Europeans still feel thinking back about WWII.
But anyway, I don't really see how American citizens, the parents of those brave kids sent abroad to fight wars designed to increase military spendings and control oil, would have any means to prevent these wars from happening. Their voices will be ignored next time too by Washington and their lobbies and media will be made to support whatever lies they come up with next time as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
God only knows where you are looking.
1. Western society is not becoming increasingly unequal; on the contrary, excluding the trivial number of ludicrously wealthy, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it has ever been.
2. It is not true that "more people than ever are facing poverty"; quite the reverse. The problem is with definition: if you define "poverty" relative to average wealth, then it becomes impossible ever to eradicate, and you are left with the ridiculous notion that a wealthy person who leaves the country decreases the number in "poverty" simply by leaving.
3. Standards of living are not declining.
Other than that, your "analysis" is spot on.
Jeremy
Point 1.
Wealth inequality in America: It's worse than you think
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
And the same is said of Europe, I'll look a reference later if you want me to.
Point 2 -
On the other hand, the growing welfare caseload cannot be blamed solely on President Obama. True, the number of people on welfare has increased by 12.5 million since he took office. But welfare also increased during the Bush administration: The proportion of households receiving SNAP (food stamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), or SSI (Supplemental Security Income for the disabled) increased 36 percent during his presidency.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386369/welfare-state-michael-tanner
Point 2 and 3. -
Consider: 36 years ago this month, when NASA launched the Voyager 1 probe into space, 11.6 percent of Americans were officially considered poor. The other day Voyager sailed clear out of the solar system into interstellar space — the first man-made object to do so — recording its environment on an 8-track deck.
Using the same official metric — which actually undercounts the poor compared to new methods used by the Census today — the poverty rate is 15 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?_r=0
-
You are the one advocating solutions taken out a Silvester Stallone movie here, not me. My point is just that people, not only you, should try to learn a bit about the history of the middle east to understand better what is going on. Obviously you are not interested, so I'll leave the discussion now.
Ok, fair enough. So, my solution is wrong, French president's solution is wrong ("our response will be ruthless"), etc. Your solution is to go to library, sit there for years, studying the Middle East history, reading Wikipedia, googling, etc. Until we finally, years later, think we understand better what's going on. And then what? What shall we do then? By the way, by the time it took us to studying it, the map of the Middle East would be completely different. So we get out of the library after years of studying, take a look at the new situation and say "Nope...back to the library, time to study the new situation."
So, let me repeat: after figuring out what's going on (and apparently you already have), what then? What's your solution?
-
What's this crap about "poverty and lack of education"? Every single known Islamic terrorist so far has been rich or well-off and well educated. Every single young misguided soul rushing to join their fight from the West is coming from reasinably well-off and educated families, one of which is just a few miles away from my home.
-
Ah, yes, colonialism and imperialism. Two staples of every left criticism. But note that ISIS is not fighting the occupiers. They are gone from Iraq and never been (recently) in Syria. They are fighting their own, taking the territory from their own. And not only in the Middle East, but in Africa too, fighting their own. Beginning in Asia.
-
I'll weigh in with some references on this topic. First the funny one; American comedian Steve Martin wrote a hilarious take on the 72 virgins that are promised to those who commit the atrocious acts (left unsaid is what do the girls/women who do the same thing get?? I've never seen this answered):
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/01/29/seventy-two-virgins
Two good books on the failures of modern Islam to adapt:
Bernard Lewis: "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response"
Timur Kuran: "The Long Divergence; How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East"
Best book on the geo-political evolution of the Middle East following WW1
David Fromkin: "A Peace to End All Peace; The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East "
Best book on the follies of war:
C.V. Wedgwood: "The Thirty Years War"
Then of course there are problems outside the middle East and they are correct. Child trafficking knows no boundaries. Tribal (and I use the term broadly) enmity leads to genocidal actions on various scale (Burundi is getting ready to implode yet again). Although Francis Fukuyama wrote about the End of History back in 1989 it's clear that events since then make this claim false. As long as there is tribalism, evil doers will exist claiming their actions are sanctioned by some higher power.
Before anyone condemns Islam in general, how many terrorists have come out of the most populous Islamic nation in the world (and does anyone know what that nation is without going to Google or Wikipedia)?
-
... left unsaid is what do the girls/women who do the same thing get??...
I'd venture to say they certainly hope they don't get virgins. ;)
-
A commentary on the idiocy of the 'liberals' by a friend -
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/11/grumpy.html
-
Ok, fair enough. So, my solution is wrong, French president's solution is wrong ("our response will be ruthless"), etc. Your solution is to go to library, sit there for years, studying the Middle East history, reading Wikipedia, googling, etc. Until we finally, years later, think we understand better what's going on. And then what? What shall we do then? By the way, by the time it took us to studying it, the map of the Middle East would be completely different. So we get out of the library after years of studying, take a look at the new situation and say "Nope...back to the library, time to study the new situation."
So, let me repeat: after figuring out what's going on (and apparently you already have), what then? What's your solution?
As I already wrote, my solution to the problem at hand will be to simply leave the thread. There is no further need to misrepresent what I have written, I bow to your towering genius.
-
I'd venture to say they certainly hope they don't get virgins. ;)
I read once that the Koran was mistranslated and it actually says that martyrs will get 72 grapes.
-
There is no further need to misrepresent what I have written
A visit to a Proctologist might be call for.
A commentary on the idiocy of the 'liberals' by a friend
Rajan...your friend managed to begrudge both liberals and conservatives in one fell swoop...first smile of the day.
-
A visit to a Proctologist might be call for.
How tasteful.
-
... my solution to the problem at hand will be to simply leave the thread...
How typical... vocal in whining and arm-chair philosophizing, quiet when it comes to doing something.
-
How typical... vocal in whining and arm-chair philosophizing, quiet when it comes to doing something.
You are not doing anything either. You are just moving electrons in a photo forum.
-
You are not doing anything either. You are just moving electrons in a photo forum.
(http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz55/SmileySmiles82/Smiley/clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley_zps523d9ea5.gif)
-
Point 1.
Wealth inequality in America: It's worse than you think
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
And the same is said of Europe, I'll look a reference later if you want me to.
Point 2 -
On the other hand, the growing welfare caseload cannot be blamed solely on President Obama. True, the number of people on welfare has increased by 12.5 million since he took office. But welfare also increased during the Bush administration: The proportion of households receiving SNAP (food stamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), or SSI (Supplemental Security Income for the disabled) increased 36 percent during his presidency.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386369/welfare-state-michael-tanner
Point 2 and 3. -
Consider: 36 years ago this month, when NASA launched the Voyager 1 probe into space, 11.6 percent of Americans were officially considered poor. The other day Voyager sailed clear out of the solar system into interstellar space — the first man-made object to do so — recording its environment on an 8-track deck.
Using the same official metric — which actually undercounts the poor compared to new methods used by the Census today — the poverty rate is 15 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?_r=0
All utterly meaningless unless you define "poverty", or "officially considered poor".
Jeremy
-
God only knows where you are looking.
1. Western society is not becoming increasingly unequal; on the contrary, excluding the trivial number of ludicrously wealthy, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it has ever been.
2. It is not true that "more people than ever are facing poverty"; quite the reverse. The problem is with definition: if you define "poverty" relative to average wealth, then it becomes impossible ever to eradicate, and you are left with the ridiculous notion that a wealthy person who leaves the country decreases the number in "poverty" simply by leaving.
More food banks makes your statement seem ludicrous? :(
Not at all. They have no impact whatever on the statement.
Jeremy
-
There is no disagreement that the middle class is being hollowed out. This is I think literally the first time I have seen this incredible claim.
This disagreements are ask regarding the causes, and fall asking the typical ideological lines.
-
Here's the best thing I've read over the past few days on the subject of Middle East-based terrorism and where its funding comes from…and why. Warning: article contains calm, reasoned, informed analysis. Chest-thumping xenophobes need not bother reading.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/
-Dave-
-
Here's the best thing I've read over the past few days on the subject of Middle East-based terrorism and where its funding comes from…and why. Warning: article contains calm, reasoned, informed analysis. Chest-thumping xenophobes need not bother reading.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/
-Dave-
Ok.. I read it. I hope it clears me from the pre-emptive labeling as a "chest-thumping xenophobe"? Nevermind, that was rhetorical.
But you got to love the conclusion:
Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation.
How's that much different from what I was saying?
-
German Spiegel has very good coverage of the Paris scene - every day several new and comprehensive articles - in german.
They have also English (international) section, but unfortunately those are all older articles.
Even if you have to run the German text through a translation software, it's a good read. The articles contain a lot of factual information not available in USA or Canada.
Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de)
-
Look at it from a Middle Eastern point of view...here you have groups of peoples that have made no contribution to mankind
since Islam was introduced and that there only source of income is under their feet, and that was discovered by the civilized
world, and that, due to the West's technology, is becoming valueless as we speak. Ponder the lack of self esteem that these
people see as being forced upon them by the evil West.
Were you to rate them in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they would not attain stage one...is that not sad.
To realize that your people have no value in the scheme of the civilized world.
Tis no wonder that they crave death for themselves and others.
-
What's this crap about "poverty and lack of education"? Every single known Islamic terrorist so far has been rich or well-off and well educated.
That's not even slightly true.
-
That's not even slightly true.
Not true? Slightly true? Not even slightly true!?
Seriously!?
Dr Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania has conducted an exhaustive study of al-Qa'eda's people. He collected the life histories of 400 individuals either in al-Qa'eda or closely linked to it, and found that traditional theories of what motivates a terrorist — poverty, desperation, ignorance — did not apply in al-Qa'eda's case. Indeed, some of them turned their backs on cushy lives to sign up for bin Laden's fanciful war against the West.
A majority of Sageman's sample were well-to-do: 17.6 per cent were upper class, 54.9 per cent were middle class and 27.5 per cent were lower class. For those individuals whose educational records were available, 16.7 per cent had been educated to a level less than high school; 12.1 per cent had at least a high school education; 28.8 per cent had some college education; 33.3 per cent had a college degree; and 9 per cent had a postgraduate degree. Only 9.4 per cent had a religious education and 90.6 per cent had a secular education.
This good schooling is reflected in their career paths: 42.5 per cent were professionally employed (as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.), 32.8 per cent had a semi-skilled job, and 24.6 per cent were unskilled.
And where do they become alienated? Here's a hint:
Strikingly, 70 per cent joined the jihad while away from home. Sageman describes them as the 'elite of their country' sent abroad to study because the schools in Germany, France, England and the US are better. Egyptian-born Mohammed Atta, who crashed the jet into the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, became a violent-minded extremist while studying architecture in Hamburg. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, the Briton convicted of murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl, attended the London School of Economics. Al-Qa'eda's 'breeding ground', it seems, is as much in fragmented cities in the West as in hotbeds of Islamism in the East.
One investigation by Princeton-trained economist Claude Berrebi analyzed 335 members of the Palestinian terror groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The terrorists surveyed were mainly shahids, or "martyrs," who had died while waging jihad against Israel between 1987 and 2002. Berrebi discovered that 16 percent of those terrorists could be classified as poor, compared to 31 percent of the male Muslim population (between the ages 18 and 41) in the Palestinian territories as a whole. Conversely, 33 percent of the terrorists could be considered “well off,” compared to only 20 percent of Palestinian adult males in that same age group. And another 10 percent of the terrorists were “very well off” according to the survey, as opposed to virtually 0 percent of Palestinian males overall who fit that same description. The study also indicated that the Palestinian terrorists were generally more highly educated than the typical male in the Palestinian population at large...
... The anecdotal evidence is also overwhelming. Osama bin Laden, for instance, inherited the extraordinarily large fortune of his Saudi family. Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a trained physician. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, was a graduate student in Germany when he became radicalized. One of the 2005 London bombers left behind an estate valued at more than $150,000. The 2007 terrorist attack at Scotland's Glasgow International Airport was carried out by a medical doctor and an engineer. Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people and wounded at least 31 others (at Fort Hood, Texas) in November 2009, was highly educated and financially well-off. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian terrorist who attempted to detonate explosives aboard a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009, was a child of Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, one of the richest men in Africa (and the former Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Economic Development).
-
Knowing the social and/or economic circumstances of individual terrorists may help to explain their motivation but does little to help non-jihadists understand the ideology that underpins (`justifies') their actions. The problem, as I see it, is with the belief system and the circumstances that lead otherwise largely unremarkable individuals to suspend their humanity in order act on its most extreme tenets. That, in itself, is not exclusive to any one religion and is perhaps not a religious thing at all. Surely this is a time for careful reflection, not simply reaction.
-
One imagines that a well to do Muslim might be motivated to action on behalf of the less fortunate. It's not seen as bizarre when Christians do it.
-
The religious aspect is probably the excuse not the cause. And that made be more generally true, not just in this case. When you want to whip up people into a frenzy, you use emotion.
And we should probably keep in mind that the Turk and Kurd (and other) troops fighting ISIS on the ground are themselves mainly muslim (culturally if not always religiously). Reducing this to good guy vs bad guy is not helpful; it has not been so thus far, or we wouldn't be here.
A good interview podcast on the conflict (may not be available outside Canada): podcast link. (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/special-program-dedicated-to-the-paris-attacks-1.3319706/paul-rogers-on-paris-attacks-making-sense-of-the-senseless-1.3319744)
-
One imagines that a well to do Muslim might be motivated to action on behalf of the less fortunate...
Oh, how delightful! So sweet actually. The newest spin: the most vicious, barbaric terrorists in modern history are actually just Robin Hoods.
It is almost as good as this one from today's news:
A Democrat candidate for a state representative seat in Minnesota has withdrawn from the race after he drew ire from many — including those in his own party — with a controversial tweet following the Paris terrorist attacks.
“ISIS isn’t necessarily evil,” Dan Kimmel, a candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat tweeted Saturday. “It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”
-
That's not what I said and it diminishes you to pretend I did.
-
The religious aspect is probably the excuse not the cause.
Far be it from me to stand in the way of your fantasies. All I know is, for me the kafir, there are some not-too-pleasant things prescribed in the Quran.
-
According to the Left loons, the real victims of Paris are the Muslims, not the infidels. Solution: import more Muslims. Good luck. At this rate, there don't be a Europe in 20 years.
-
That's not what I said and it diminishes you to pretend I did.
Then support what you said with any evidence that ISIS fights for the poor, that they have any socio-economic program to that end, other than establishing a religious rule in the form of a caliphate. Unless you count distributing under-age girls to their fighters as a profit-sharing system?
-
Far be it from me to stand in the way of your fantasies. All I know is, for me the kafir, there are some not-too-pleasant things prescribed in the Quran.
I'm sure that's true, and it's probably true of many religious texts.
-
I'm sure that's true, and it's probably true of many religious texts.
It might be, though I doubt the degree is the same. However, even if true, nobody is acting today on those other religious texts, at least not on such a massive scale or with such devastating consequences.
-
I'm sure that's true, and it's probably true of many religious texts.
The key point is, in the current day, only adherents to one text put it into practice.
-
I am not interested in arguing the details of this case or that. My aim is to dump on reductionism wherever I find it.
Consider this: everyone thinks they're the good guys. Simply saying loudly 'but WE ARE' doesn't make you any righter.
There is plenty of blame to go around. To simply apply it all to the other guys is absurd.
-
The key point is, in the current day, only adherents to one text put it into practice.
Nonsense. People do horrible things in the name of Christianity and Judaism quite regularly.
-
The scientologists are not immune. The Hindus like to keep their hand in. I think the Sikhs have done the odd atrocity in the last decade but I might be misremembering.
I think there are sects of Buddhists, for crying out loud, that do terrible things, although they may not be active at this exact time.
-
Nonsense. People do horrible things in the name of Christianity and Judaism quite regularly.
And I jaywalk regularly, thus break the law, thus I am a criminal. The same criminal as any other serial killer or mass murderer. Right?
Scale, my friend, scale matters.
-
Consider your reductionism dumped upon.
-
Consider your reductionism dumped upon.
That's the best you can do? Equating ISIS with Robin Hood and Buddhists? If that is not reductionism and trivialization that amounts to justification, I do not know what is.
-
Tsk.
-
Have read a lot about this situation these past days, I see clearly the following:
- The West is mostly responsible for the current vicious circle we are in, with an extremely high degree of responsibility on the US (the Irak war) and a significant one on France too (the policy relative to Syria),
- More wars, more drone action, will only serve to mess up the situation further by generating more hatred,
- Only the Muslim populations of the middle east themselves can bring this situation to long term stable peace, but they are currently unable to do this,
- The target of the 13-Fri attacks in France isn't a vague hit on the Western way of living. The objective is to trigger civil unrest between the muslim populations in France and the rest of the countries in hope that France would explode from within. They are trying to start a civil war both as a result and as the origin of more hatred,
- The huge majority of peaceful muslims living in Western countries, in particular France and Belgium, have a key role to play in convincing the extremists among their communities to give up on their current course of action. Top arab intellectual, such as Tariq Ramadan, will be central also,
- European countries will probably have no choice but to embark on a painful securization of their societies, bringing them closer to - what I consider living hell - the US and Israeli standards.
No, I don't have the solution, I am just trying to gather objective facts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
All utterly meaningless unless you define "poverty", or "officially considered poor".
Jeremy
I see, so people aren't poor unless they are begging by the roadside, otherwise they are just fine. Is that it?
You asked what I'd been reading, I showed you some of what is being said in the US and the same things are being said over here as well. If you don't like my answer then go and talk to the people spreading this wicked propaganda.
I was trying to find the origin of a quote that goes something like 'poverty keeps pace with prosperity' but found this instead, which is equally apt, if not more so -
So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent. ~Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 1879
But then, Henry George would be castigated as a bit of a pinko nowadays I guess.
-
Quote from: kikashi on November 15, 2015, 12:52:20 PM
God only knows where you are looking.
1. Western society is not becoming increasingly unequal; on the contrary, excluding the trivial number of ludicrously wealthy, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it has ever been.
2. It is not true that "more people than ever are facing poverty"; quite the reverse. The problem is with definition: if you define "poverty" relative to average wealth, then it becomes impossible ever to eradicate, and you are left with the ridiculous notion that a wealthy person who leaves the country decreases the number in "poverty" simply by leaving.More food banks makes your statement seem ludicrous? :(
Not at all. They have no impact whatever on the statement.
Jeremy
The conservatives are planning to cut tax credits for millions of struggling families. If they manage that Jeremy do you think that will widen the gap between the rich and poor?
-
I see, so people aren't poor unless they are begging by the roadside, otherwise they are just fine. Is that it?
That's not what I wrote, and if you paused to think for a moment, you'd be aware of that.
So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent. ~Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 1879
They key word in that quotation is "but". Its use is subtle and a little archaic, which may be why its significance has passed you by. It's what makes the sentiment inapplicable. Anyway, why is a sentence from a 19th century journalist of any interest?
Jeremy
-
The conservatives are planning to cut tax credits for millions of struggling families. If they manage that, Jeremy, do you think that will widen the gap between the rich and poor?
As I'm sure you're aware, the issue is rather more complex than you present. There's a perfectly respectable view which holds that tax credits are a state subsidy to businesses that underpay their employees; and that that problem is better addressed by increase in pay, via statutory compulsion if necessary, than by redistribution of income by taxation.
Jeremy
-
That's not what I wrote, and if you paused to think for a moment, you'd be aware of that.
They key word in that quotation is "but". Its use is subtle and a little archaic, which may be why its significance has passed you by. It's what makes the sentiment inapplicable. Anyway, why is a sentence from a 19th century journalist of any interest?
Jeremy
Which is why I included the question mark, what do you mean by your remarks?
So are we to ignore all lessons from history, or just those that are inconvenient for any particular idealogy?
-
There has always been and always will be, the rich and the poor, those that have and those that don't.
The Bell Curve represents more than intelligence...it also measures success/adaptability/all aspects of human behavior.
Blaming others for your shortcomings shows that you exist on the left side of that curve and lack the wherewithal to migrate to the right side.
Causes of terrorism encompass a list to vast to enumerate...abusive, drug addicted parents to some perceived god-like figure that
existed some fourteen hundred yeas ago. Regardless, the maladjusted among us have always, and always will, exist.
There was a time that they were scattered fragments of civilized society, unable to adapt, unable to migrate to the right side of that curve.
The internet has lead the way in allowing those fragments to communicate, raking those fragments together into groups of malcontents.
I do know, and am positive about, is the government's inability to protect it's citizens from these malcontents.
The most oxymoronic phrase bandied about is governmental intelligence agencies.
-
The situation in which the poor of the west find themselves today is much better than the their lot 100 years ago. This does not mean poverty is not real.
The point about gap between rich and poor isn't about the poor, though. That is a red herring. It is about the middle class, which the oligarchy is, as oligarchies are wont to do, busily trying to dismantle. With a fair degree of success in the just few decades.
Since poverty is now so great, the reasoning seems to be, why don't we just shove the entire working class down to that level? Then there is more stuff for us! And who doesn't like stuff?
The problem of course is that this future theoretical economy doesn't actually work very well.
The CEO of Uber, of amazon, of Pfizer, of Unilever, either doesn't know this or doesn't care. All he knows is labor costs can probably be reduced if he only applies himself, and then there's a bonus for him.
Because the capitalist/right wrong philosophies are currently ascendant among the leaders of our glorious Nations, these efforts to reduce labor costs are not effectively thwarted.
And here we are. We have a completely fabricated shortage of STEM graduates which enables the import of cheap labor into highly skilled markets. We have amazon warehouses worked by a rotating army of temporary, I.e. cheap, workers. Higher education is largely done by cheap temporary staff.
The middle class is being hollowed out.
There are global implications as well, as a result of these ideas and policies, which I elect not to address for several reasons, one being that I don't understand them very well.
-
The key point is, in the current day, only adherents to one text put it into practice.
Hindus were conveniently forgotten, granted they kill only in India... that is certainly an excuse ;D !!!
-
Hindus were conveniently forgotten, granted they kill only in India... that is certainly an excuse ;D !!!
There is no Book or text enjoining Hindus to kill, wound or convert others.
-
A little googling suggests that is completely, objectively, false.
-
There is no Book or text enjoining Hindus to kill, wound or convert others.
well, it seems they do this spontaneously then ;D
-
well, it seems they do this spontaneously then ;D
India has a long and turbulent history with Islam, and there are periodic outbreaks of violence in the country.
-
As we all stood for a minute's silence at 11:00am this morning (noon in France), I reflected upon some of what has been written in this column.
Having reflected, I do not - for the time being at least - really want to say very much. It is just so mind-numbingly sad.
-
The Gita is an exhortation to war. It is a conversation between a god and a prince discussing how, when, and why, the prince should go kill a bunch of people.
With some some sidebars.
-
India has a long and turbulent history with Islam, and there are periodic outbreaks of violence in the country.
I see, so this is Islam to blame then ;D
-
By all means let's sidetrack the discussion to India, the major civilization threat to America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Middle East. The favorite trick of armchair intellectuals: trivializing and equating everything to the point of absurd.
-
The problem is, of course, global. Mainly because there are people everywhere.
Also, we're not going to solve it here, so who the hell cares what we choose to talk about?
-
There are problems around the globe, yet only a few are global. Radical Islam is one of them. India is not.
-
There are problems around the globe, yet only a few are global. Radical Islam is one of them. India is not.
yes, as it was noted they kill only in India...
-
One of the things we can usefully do is fight against the trivializing idea that 'well, it's basically just that Islam is terrible' which does some harm and no good.
-
By all means let's sidetrack the discussion to India, the major civilization threat to America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Middle East. The favorite trick of armchair intellectuals: trivializing and equating everything to the point of absurd.
the major civilization threat to America is America's own actions in the first place...
-
An historian's view: Macmillan. (http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/margaret-macmillan-terrorism-almost-fully-died-out-in-the-20th-century-it-could-burn-out-again&pubdate=2015-11-16)
-
One of the things we can usefully do is fight against the trivializing idea that 'well, it's basically just that Islam is terrible' which does some harm and no good.
That's a very good description of what armchair intellectuals love doing: "fighting" against "bad" ideas... while the rest of the world has to actually fight actual people who put actually really bad ideas into actual practice.
-
So when are you off to the middle east, Slobodan? And will you be taking a camera?
-
Is there a way to stop all the madness
Stopping being humans, I guess.
As long as people will continue to use their brain, instead of their mind, fear will always be an extremely effective way to achieve both side's objectives.
In fact, islamic terrorists are the perfect storm for those eager to sell security at the price of rationality: a fearful population is much easer to control.
-
So when are you off to the middle east, Slobodan? And will you be taking a camera?
Supporting those who will go there is better than undermining them by saying they will be fighting Muslim Robin Hoods, which "aren't necessarily evil, just made up of people doing what they think is best for their community." (as per a Democratic congressional candidate)
If not me directly, my ancestors and countrymen had 500 years of fighting off Muslim invasion of Europe, some of which in the last couple of decades. That puts me in a slightly better position than someone whose only fight is which book on the subject to read next.
-
I am pretty sure you're the only person here, or possibly anywhere on earth, who has described radical islamists as Robin Hoods.
To say that they arise from and that they are bolstered by a culture which feels itself victimized by the west is not the same thing as to describe them as a bunch of Robin Hoods except in the most simplistic and facetious interpretations.
-
I am pretty sure you're the only person here, or possibly anywhere on earth, who has described radical islamists as Robin Hoods...
Me?
How about this guy:
One imagines that a well to do Muslim might be motivated to action on behalf of the less fortunate...
-
I see neither of the words "Robin" nor "Hood" in the quoted text.
Nor do I see the meaning you seem to be ascribing to it, and, well look at that, I wrote it, so I get to decide what it means.
But I am finished now, I cannot bear to argue with you further on this because I am, ultimately, fond of you. I unilaterally agree to disagree, and you are welcome to join me in that position if you like.
-
... Nor do I see the meaning you seem to be ascribing to it..
Per Wikipedia:
Robin Hood is often portrayed as "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor"
But I agree to disagree and drop the subject.
-
while the rest of the world has to actually fight actual people who put actually really bad ideas into actual practice.
Just as a matter of interest, what fighting are you doing? Or are you, perhaps, still in your armchair?
-
Just as a matter of interest, what fighting are you doing? Or are you, perhaps, still in your armchair?
Already asked and answered.
-
Already asked and answered.
Aah yes, sorry, my mistake - your ancestors fought Muslims. Obviously that justifies your current recumbent position.
-
Aah yes, sorry, my mistake - your ancestors fought Muslims. Obviously that justifies your current recumbent position.
In any war, not everyone fights directly. Those who don't have three choices: to support the fight, stay quiet (do nothing) or undermine the fight. We all know the famous quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That addresses those who stay quiet.
We are already fighting. I support that fight.
Those who would rather retire to a library to "study the problem," those who bring the Crusades, Bhudists, Indians, etc. into the discussion, those who say " they aren't necessarily evil, just made up of people doing what they think is best for their community," those who refuse to see or admit the only-too obvious link to the religion, they are those who effectively undermine the fight.
I am all for a careful analysis. I am all for an open debate. I am all for admitting past mistakes we did. But there is time for analysis and time for debate, and then there is time for action.
This it the time for action.
-
I am all for a careful analysis. I am all for an open debate. I am all for admitting past mistakes we did. But there is time for analysis and time for debate, and then there is time for action.
This it the time for action.
Yeah, right - but the fact remains that you aren't actually doing anything apart from typing garbage on an internet forum.
-
While we are all busy working ourselves up into a lather about those wicked Islamic fundamentalists here's another zealot that should perhaps be condemned, or is it alright because he's 'one of us'?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/christian-pastor-criticizes-paris-terror-attack-victims-for-attending-death-metal-concert/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=friendlyatheist_111615UTC051113_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=50028537&spUserID=MTQ0Mzk0MDA2MTc1S0&spJobID=802204080&spReportId=ODAyMjA0MDgwS0
-
Yeah, right - but the fact remains that you aren't actually doing anything apart from typing garbage on an internet forum.
Which helps to shape public opinion, or at least counters shaping it by the garbage you and the likes type.
Besides, I will be voting soon... would that count as "doing"?
-
It was probably rhetorical but I don't think it's one or the other, analysis or action, it's probably both, and other things too, simultaneously, all the time. I presume that what you meant by action is to go shoot someone. I would agree, when someone is shooting at you, you should shoot back. In this case, ISIS seems to have no friends so nobody will be upset when people shoot back. But unless you analyze first, you might not know who to shoot.
From the NY Times: NY Times opinion piece. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/opinion/the-attacks-in-paris-reveal-the-strategic-limits-of-isis.html?emc=eta1&_r=0)
-
Besides, I will be voting soon... would that count as "doing"?
Just be careful you don't overexert yourself.
-
It was probably rhetorical but I don't think it's one or the other, analysis or action, it's probably both, and other things too, simultaneously, all the time. I presume that what you meant by action is to go shoot someone. I would agree, when someone is shooting at you, you should shoot back. In this case, ISIS seems to have no friends so nobody will be upset when people shoot back. But unless you analyze first, you might not know who to shoot.
From the NY Times: NY Times opinion piece. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/opinion/the-attacks-in-paris-reveal-the-strategic-limits-of-isis.html?emc=eta1&_r=0)
I agree: simultaneous and all the time.
Good article, thanks.
Here is another, in the Washington Post, written by a former ambassador to Iraq, Turkey and Albania, and deputy national security adviser:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-send-ground-forces-to-eliminate-the-islamic-state/2015/11/16/685aff20-8c63-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
-
the-us-must-send-ground-forces-to-eliminate-the-islamic-state
Genius. That worked so well last time around. And the time before that. And ....
-
I agree: simultaneous and all the time.
Good article, thanks.
Here is another, in the Washington Post, written by a former ambassador to Iraq, Turkey and Albania, and deputy national security adviser:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-send-ground-forces-to-eliminate-the-islamic-state/2015/11/16/685aff20-8c63-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
It's going to end up being whack-a-mole. Until "moderate" Islam (yes the vast proportion who follow the precepts of Islam are in fact moderates as per three of my neighbors) openly reject "radical" Islam and take overt steps to end support of the Wahabist regime in Saudi Arabia who disproportionately fund all this (along with their Qatari neighbors) things will never get resolved. Another splinter group will arise (look at the huge Islamic discontent in regions of Russia). There needs to be a unified approach to this problem, throwing more soldiers and ordinance at ISIS is a useful short term strategy but destined to end up just like Iraq and Afghanistan. The US will feel good for a moment but things will eventually go south (remember President Bush's proclamation of victory on the aircraft carrier back in 2003???).
-
It's going to end up being whack-a-mole. Until "moderate" Islam (yes the vast proportion who follow the precepts of Islam are in fact moderates as per three of my neighbors) openly reject "radical" Islam and take overt steps to end support of the Wahabist regime in Saudi Arabia who disproportionately fund all this (along with their Qatari neighbors) things will never get resolved. Another splinter group will arise (look at the huge Islamic discontent in regions of Russia). There needs to be a unified approach to this problem, throwing more soldiers and ordinance at ISIS is a useful short term strategy but destined to end up just like Iraq and Afghanistan. The US will feel good for a moment but things will eventually go south (remember President Bush's proclamation of victory on the aircraft carrier back in 2003???).
"Mission accomplished" Was anybody really ever sure what the mission actually was or how it was known that it had been accomplished?
-
The military objective of removing the Bath Party from power in Iraq was the mission that carrier helped accomplish. Neither the sailors aboard nor President Bush had any illusion that the "war was over" or that all problems in Iraq were solved. Anyone who paid any attention to what Bush said that day would know that.
-
‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least million and half times.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/
-
‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least million and half times.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/
"Also featured is American presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who gives his opinion on the migrant crisis"
"It also includes a short clip of discredited, anti-Semitic politician Nick Griffin, former Member of the European Parliament and leader of the British National Party."
Yep, an all star cast of reliable authorities.
-
The military objective of removing the Bath Party from power in Iraq was the mission that carrier helped accomplish. Neither the sailors aboard nor President Bush had any illusion that the "war was over" or that all problems in Iraq were solved. Anyone who paid any attention to what Bush said that day would know that.
I always kinda felt that they were making things like that up as they went along in a bid to cover the fact that things weren't going to according to the hawks wet dreams.... sorry carefully conceived and detailed plans. But I could be wrong.
-
the fact that things weren't going to according to the hawks wet dreams
Boeing, Halliburton and many others made (and still make) billions from the "carefully conceived and detailed plans gone wrong".
So, maybe, they didn't went wrong, after all.
-
From a pragmatic perspective, two questions, without any political stand, which I do not wish to discuss here:
1. ISIS is selling oil to make money, who is buying it?
2. ISIS is using said money to buy guns, who is selling them?
Regards
-
From a pragmatic perspective, two questions, without any political stand, which I do not wish to discuss here:
1. ISIS is selling oil to make money, who is buying it?
2. ISIS is using said money to buy guns, who is selling them?
Regards
Whatever the answers are, it doesn't matter because shutting down the money flow to the bad guys will require a level of international coordination that never existed in history (and will probably never will).
-
From a pragmatic perspective, two questions, without any political stand, which I do not wish to discuss here:
1. ISIS is selling oil to make money, who is buying it?
2. ISIS is using said money to buy guns, who is selling them?
Regards
Well this is the crazy thing - the answer to your questions are the same in both cases - everyone. The Syrian regime, the Turks, ultimately you and me.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fact-check-fund-reign-terror/21908
-
Well this is the crazy thing - the answer to your questions are the same in both cases - everyone. The Syrian regime, the Turks, ultimately you and me.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fact-check-fund-reign-terror/21908
Yes, I already knew about all these topics. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that political discussion alone will not oust these barbarians; actions will, and cutting supply lines and financial ties from the likes of Saudi, Qatar, and Kuwait...
BTW, I use "barbarians" in the sense of "savages" and "thugs".
-
Yes, I already knew about all these topics. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that political discussion alone will not oust these barbarians; actions will, and cutting supply lines and financial ties from the likes of Saudi, Qatar, and Kuwait...
Looks like the "I want world peace" thing at Miss America, to me.
-
Yes, I already knew about all these topics...
Ok, but did you know about the third source of arms, Obama's donations? In his delusion, he spent hundred million dollars on arming and training so-called moderate Muslims, only to see them defect to ISIS the next day, taking with them all those, fairly modern and sophisticated arms.
-
...Yep, an all star cast of reliable authorities.
Both take a few seconds in the 19 minute video, shorter than, for instance, Angela Merker and other pro-refugee politicians also featured.
-
While we are all busy working ourselves up into a lather about those wicked Islamic fundamentalists here's another zealot that should perhaps be condemned, or is it alright because he's 'one of us'?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/christian-pastor-criticizes-paris-terror-attack-victims-for-attending-death-metal-concert/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=friendlyatheist_111615UTC051113_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=50028537&spUserID=MTQ0Mzk0MDA2MTc1S0&spJobID=802204080&spReportId=ODAyMjA0MDgwS0
No, he's a moronic bigot. But he hasn't killed anyone.
Jeremy
-
Both take a few seconds in the 19 minute video, shorter than, for instance, Angela Merker and other pro-refugee politicians also featured.
I would hope so. But why include these clowns AT ALL ? It hardly boosts the credibility of the enterprise.
-
Ok, but did you know about the third source of arms, Obama's donations? In his delusion, he spent hundred million dollars on arming and training so-called moderate Muslims, only to see them defect to ISIS the next day, taking with them all those, fairly modern and sophisticated arms.
Yeah, well, I guess he was hoping that these guys would do the job of fixing their homeland without foreign boots on the ground. Of course when you enlist, bringing your family history of fighting Muslims to bear, he can relax.
-
I would hope so. But why include these clowns AT ALL ? It hardly boosts the credibility of the enterprise.
You mean you'd prefer to hear only one point of view?
-
Yeah, well, I guess he was hoping...
Yep, that's all he does. Hence the title: Hope-Peddler-In-Chief.
-
You mean you'd prefer to hear only one point of view?
I don't include inane nonsense uttered by idiots in the category of "useful debate".
-
If we bombed the oil spigots at the source, ISIS couldn'tget the oil out in the first place. why were the munitions dumps and training camps just bombed by the French after one year of American and ally bombing? Where have we been in our bombing? What a joke.
-
I don't include inane nonsense uttered by idiots in the category of "useful debate".
One of those "idiots" is the leading presidential candidate. But I guess your definition of "useful debate" includes only those who agree with you. Why debate it then?
-
If we bombed the oil spigots at the source, ISIS couldn'tget the oil out in the first place. why were the munitions dumps and training camps just bombed by the French after one year of American and ally bombing? Where have we been in our bombing? What a joke.
The biggest success of the devil is making us think it doesn't exists.
If you think the guys directing this war are all idiots, just check how much money they make move: maybe they are not so idiot.
-
One of those "idiots" is the leading presidential candidate.
And the scary part is that he isn't even the dumbest of the Republican candidates!!
But I guess your definition of "useful debate" includes only those who agree with you. Why debate it then?
You may guess that, but nothing I have written supports your speculation.
-
. . . why were the munitions dumps and training camps just bombed by the French after one year of American and ally bombing? Where have we been in our bombing? What a joke.
The U.S. bombing campaign has been purely symbolic. The current administration doesn't want to actually harm ISIS. ISIS stands in the way of Iran and Russia dominating Syria. ISIS is also destabilizing Iraq and thus Iran's interests in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Turkey don't want an ascendant Russia and Iran in the region. Air power is an effective way to soften up an area before sending in ground troops to take and hold real estate. The current administration has already made it perfectly clear there are no ground troops going to Syria. We spend millions of dollars to drop some bombs on ineffective targets and at best we shake some sand and rocks and kill a few insignificant ISIS troops with no real purpose other than putting up a good front.
-
Ok, but did you know about the third source of arms, Obama's donations? In his delusion, he spent hundred million dollars on arming and training so-called moderate Muslims, only to see them defect to ISIS the next day, taking with them all those, fairly modern and sophisticated arms.
The number of defections was minimal relative to the Iraqui troops that fled because they did not want to fight leaving their weapons behind. You need to get the story correct rather than to be anti-Obama about everything. Remember who kept up the search for Ben Laden and his name doesn't equate with Bush.
-
The number of defections was minimal relative to the Iraqui troops that fled because they did not want to fight leaving their weapons behind. You need to get the story correct...
So minimal that the Defense Dept. had to scrap the whole program, as practically no one left?
The Obama administration on Friday abandoned its efforts to build up a new rebel force inside Syria to combat the Islamic State, acknowledging the failure of its $500 million campaign to train thousands of fighters... after mounting evidence that the training mission had resulted in no more than a handful of American-coached fighters.
The whole article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html
Who needs to get his story straight, again?
-
why were the munitions dumps and training camps just bombed by the French
what makes you think that French actually hit something other than just dropped the bombs because Hollande needs PR ?
-
... nothing I have written supports your speculation.
You are right, you indeed have written nothing to contribute to the debate, apart from cutesy snipes and personal attacks.
-
Remember who kept up the search for Ben Laden
I guess those were rank & file federal employees... what Obama had to do with that other than non issuing an order to specifically stop the search which 'd be a nonsense ? may be you mean the decision to send people in to kill whoever was discovered in that house in Pakistan ?
-
I always kinda felt that they were making things like that up as they went along in a bid to cover the fact that things weren't going to according to the hawks wet dreams.... sorry carefully conceived and detailed plans. But I could be wrong.
Really? The military objective for that particular carrier battle group was defined before the operation, accomplished according to the operations plan, and when it was time for the group to rotate out (the first of the very large units to do so), the president flew out to acknowledge them. Bush clearly said in his speech on the deck that the first combat phase was over, but the long, hard work of stabilizing Iraq remained. That's an example of "making it up as you go along"?
Perhaps in the intervening years we've forgotten how dangerous that invasion was for the coalition forces. Iraq had some serious weapons. As it turned out, their soldiers were mostly unable or unwilling to use them effectively, but plenty of Americans still died removing the Hussein government from power. It might be easy to dismiss that now, but I'm sure the families of the people who were killed and wounded haven't forgotten.
An alternate explanation is that the president's critics, eager to twist anything he said to look dishonest or foolish, painted his statements with a far broader intent than he intended. They hoped to manufacture something to beat him with relentlessly. And their mission was accomplished.
-
Since I do not mind audiatur at altera pars ("hear the other side") here is one video that many in this thread might enjoy. The video is very much against what I've been advocating (well, at least in terms of the next move, if not in the assessment of the situation and what led to it). It is posted on Facebook, and I do not have any other url, sorry. The gentleman in the video is a former US Marine.
https://www.facebook.com/MPACUK1Ummah/videos/1478473405754889/
-
The key point is, in the current day, only adherents to one text put it into practice.
That will be news to the victims of Sikh plane-bombers in Canada, Buddhists in Myanmar, etc etc etc
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/world/asia/extremism-rises-among-myanmar-buddhists-wary-of-muslim-minority.html?_r=0
-
http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-war-is-no-remedy-for-terrorism/a-18854501
regardless the other parts... "A French commentator wrote: We kill the badly dressed extremists, and we flatter the ones in elegant clothes. These words were aimed at Saudi Arabia."... however - what is the alternative ? when West tried to unsit less "friendly" regimes in Libya, Iraq or Syria the outcome was what it is... what do to with bloody sheikhs ?
-
Personally, I think we need to stop identifying this as a problem with a group of people, and rather as a problem with an especially dangerous ideology. Once you start filming yourself beheading prisoners, whom you admit have taken no hostile action, you have crossed into a condition whereby your opponents can never deal with you in a non-lethal way. I felt the same thing about the Serb militia members who were taking potshots at Bosnian civilians from the hills around Sarajevo. There are some rules you just don't cross, at least if you expect not to be killed eventually.
I know someone will say the west is guilty of the same thing due to collateral damage during bomb strikes and so forth, but there is a difference in specific intent to harm civilians. Pretty hard to avoid collateral deaths when the opposing force deliberately fires upon you from Mosques. When I was in Afghanistan, I wore the uniform at all times, lest I be captured. If you're found on the battlefield not in uniform, the Geneva Conventions say you deserve no rights of protection at all. Anyone ever seen any Al Qaeda/ISIS fighters wearing a uniform? Following any of the rules of armed conflict whatsoever?
-
Really? The military objective for that particular carrier battle group was defined before the operation, accomplished according to the operations plan, and when it was time for the group to rotate out (the first of the very large units to do so), the president flew out to acknowledge them. Bush clearly said in his speech on the deck that the first combat phase was over, but the long, hard work of stabilizing Iraq remained. That's an example of "making it up as you go along"?
Perhaps in the intervening years we've forgotten how dangerous that invasion was for the coalition forces. Iraq had some serious weapons. As it turned out, their soldiers were mostly unable or unwilling to use them effectively, but plenty of Americans still died removing the Hussein government from power. It might be easy to dismiss that now, but I'm sure the families of the people who were killed and wounded haven't forgotten.
An alternate explanation is that the president's critics, eager to twist anything he said to look dishonest or foolish, painted his statements with a far broader intent than he intended. They hoped to manufacture something to beat him with relentlessly. And their mission was accomplished.
Mmmm... Can't quite remember it being spun like that at the time but there you go.
-
Mmmm... Can't quite remember it being spun like that at the time but there you go.
Spun? Just go read what the man said.
-
Spun? Just go read what the man said.
Well, Wes, some things just lend themselves nicely to ridicule, when deliberately misinterpreted. Take, for example, the sign at the last Republican convention. "We Built It" was meant to respond to Obama's proclamation to small businessmen that they "didn't build it," meaning infrastructure, roads, etc. They also put the sign about the growing national debt. When the two signs are placed next to each other, however... :D
-
I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.
-
I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.
This is pretty much what the Swiss do and their army focuses only on the defense of Switzerland and not any proxy countries. Perhaps the US should be more like the Swiss and not keep trying to be number one at everything.
-
Well, Wes, some things just lend themselves nicely to ridicule, when deliberately misinterpreted. Take, for example, the sign at the last Republican convention. "We Built It" was meant to respond to Obama's proclamation to small businessmen that they "didn't build it," meaning infrastructure, roads, etc. They also put the sign about the growing national debt. When the two signs are placed next to each other, however... :D
Here's a story a guy told me back in 1974. Apparently, some local association decided to run a public awareness campaign about mental illness. So they put up a sign in town that said "One out of every 25 people is mentally ill." Someone else found a bumper sticker left over from the last presidential election, and placed in on the same sign: "Nixon's The One."
-
This is pretty much what the Swiss do and their army focuses only on the defense of Switzerland and not any proxy countries. Perhaps the US should be more like the Swiss and not keep trying to be number one at everything.
I wonder how many US citizens live and work all over the world. Probably more than the entire combined population of Switzerland.
-
I wonder how many US citizens live and work all over the world. Probably more than the entire combined population of Switzerland.
I'm sure that is true but the question is whether the US has an obligation to protect its citizens who live outside the US because of their own choice related to work or otherwise.
-
I'm sure that is true but the question is whether the US has an obligation to protect its citizens who live outside the US because of their own choice related to work or otherwise.
I suppose that's up to the citizens in those situations. Hard to imagine that a majority of Americans would decide that we'd be better off if we simply abandoned all of our citizens abroad.
And, that wouldn't keep assorted enemies from coming here. One popular jihadi strategic theory holds that fundamentalist Islamic states can't succeed on their own, since those states are easy enough for the west to attack. So the jihadists seek to turn the entire non-Islamic world into a "wilderness," where everyone is at constant risk of terror attack. Then the Islamic states offer safety, in return for submission to Islamic rule.
I don't see a lot of evidence that they're completely wrong with that. We haven't had very many successful terror attacks here since 9/11 (the Boston marathon bombing being an exception), but they'll be harder and harder to prevent as we retreat within our own borders. Spain pretty much dropped out of the fight after their train attacks, right?
What happens to Europe as the percentage of Muslim citizens grows? Isn't France on the road to being a majority Muslim country within 50 years or so? Will Friday's attacks change that trajectory?
-
I know the US has a strong presence from the Indian, Pakistani, Russian, and British armed forces here to protect their citizens working abroad, it seems only fair that we should return the favor.
-
I know the US has a strong presence from the Indian, Pakistani, Russian, and British armed forces here to protect their citizens working abroad, it seems only fair that we should return the favor.
If our citizens there would enjoy the same level of protection as those you mention enjoy here, perhaps we would not need to return the favor.
But of course, you know perfectly well it is not just about citizen protection.
-
Former ISIS hostage, French reporter tortured for 10 months: They *want* us to retaliate (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks?CMP=share_btn_tw)
In Syria I learned that Islamic State longs to provoke retaliation. We should not fall into the trap
As a proud Frenchman I am as distressed as anyone about the events in Paris. But I am not shocked or incredulous. I know Islamic State. I spent 10 months as an Isis hostage, and I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart.
Most people only know them from their propaganda material, but I have seen behind that. In my time as their captive, I met perhaps a dozen of them, including Mohammed Emwazi: Jihadi John was one of my jailers. He nicknamed me “Baldy”.
Even now I sometimes chat with them on social media, and can tell you that much of what you think of them results from their brand of marketing and public relations. They present themselves to the public as superheroes, but away from the camera are a bit pathetic in many ways: street kids drunk on ideology and power. In France we have a saying – stupid and evil. I found them more stupid than evil. That is not to understate the murderous potential of stupidity.
All of those beheaded last year were my cellmates, and my jailers would play childish games with us – mental torture – saying one day that we would be released and then two weeks later observing blithely, “Tomorrow we will kill one of you.” The first couple of times we believed them but after that we came to realise that for the most part they were bullshitters having fun with us.
They would play mock executions. Once they used chloroform with me. Another time it was a beheading scene. A bunch of French-speaking jihadis were shouting, “We’re going to cut your head off and put it on to your arse and upload it to YouTube.” They had a sword from an antique shop.
They were laughing and I played the game by screaming, but they just wanted fun. As soon as they left I turned to another of the French hostages and just laughed. It was so ridiculous.
It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.
After all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Assad is the priority
Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans. They see everything as moving us down that road. Consequently, everything is a blessing from Allah.
With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.
Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.
-
I find it interesting that one choice never comes up for debate, and that is for foreign powers to simply leave places in which they're not wanted, don't understand what's going on, and are not doing any good. I realize that "legitimate interest" is an elastic term that means whatever people want it to mean, but still. Of course now, since they have fired on "us" on "our" soil, we somehow feel it is our duty and obligation to stay and fight. Hard to comprehend after all this time why we're there in the first place.
Oil.
-
Oil.
That argument doesn't work. The US only gets about 11 or 12% of our oil from the Persian gulf. If that all went away, we could make up for it with fracking in a matter of months.
We do get about 9% of our oil from Venezuela, which is currently under the control of an inept dictator, very hostile to US interests. If we were so driven by concerns about oil, we'd have eliminated his predecessor years ago, much less this one.
-
I was raised with the belief that god created man and was written in old testament style...
You'll might not subscribe to either belief system but if one reads about the coming apocalypse and what Nostradamus foretold...
it does lend credence to the possibility that the barbarians may have bitten off a whole lot more than they can handle.
Especially true if the Bear joins the Eagle ( Russia and NATO).
-
In response to Misirlou:
The significance of `oil' is not limited to or by US domestic consumption which, in fact, has barely any impact on the value of oil to the US economy. The vast majority of all the worlds oil is traded (exclusively) in US dollars creating demand for US currency that, in turn, helps to bolster and maintain its value and thus, US `buying power' on world markets. The economy of the US and indeed much of its influence in world affairs is heavily dependent on `oil' and its trade.
In response to comments about `national interests': The term `national interests', is `wheeled out' routinely as a smoke screen for other, usually less honourable/savoury purposes/objectives. Relatively few things can be shown to be, unarguably, in the interests of entire nations. And, those which can, can usually be shown to be in the interest of virtually every nation on earth. Peace perhaps? But even peace is of arguable `value' to nations that produce and/or trade in the implements of war. Much is currently made of `the global economy'. Wouldn't it be great if we invested as much thought, time and effort in `the global citizenry'.
-
In response to Misirlou:
The significance of `oil' is not limited to or by US domestic consumption which, in fact, has barely any impact on the value of oil to the US economy. The vast majority of all the worlds oil is traded (exclusively) in US dollars creating demand for US currency that, in turn, helps to bolster and maintain its value and thus, US `buying power' on world markets. The economy of the US and indeed much of its influence in world affairs is heavily dependent on `oil' and its trade...
Nice!
There is even a theory (conspiracy or not) that what ultimately sealed Saddam's fate was a rumor that he was contemplating switching to selling his oil for Euro, instead of dollars. The rumor further has it he was in talk with Russians and Venezuelans for a co-ordinated switch.
As for national interests, I think everyone understands what they are (i.e., less than unicorn-y). Maintaining the dollar as an oil and reserve currency could be easily seen as in the national interests of the U.S.
-
Former ISIS hostage, French reporter tortured for 10 months: They *want* us to retaliate (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Finally someone in this thread is adressing the core topic.
IS only targets one concrete result and that is the increase of civil unrest in France as a result of the opposition between the population of arab origins and the rest of the country. Killing innocents is just a means to that end.
This isn't the result of a pre-existing war btwn civilizations. On the contrary, this is the dangerous attempt of a group of smart outlaws to start a war btw civilization by spreading their nihilistic views of the world, their desire to end the world as we know it by making it explode from inside.
Any action likely to increase the hatred between people, including military retaliation, will serve their goal by generating more hatred and creating more terrorists, further worsening the vicious circle triggered, among other events, by the war in Irak.
When facing an enemy who is not afraid to die to generate more obscurantism, it is pointless to speak about the effectiveness of air strikes.
Cutting their sources of funding must obviously be done, but IMHO, the number one priority we should all be discussing, is how we can create more love for the populations of islamic origins in Western European countries.
The way I look at it, we have been forced into a tremendous opportunity to fix the many cracks in the theoretical model of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" since the social dimension of the story is central here. Either we succeed quickly to really provide equal opportunities to all the citizens of France and Belgium, regardless of their religions, communities, place of dwelling,... or many more people will die in similar attacks moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Dear Lord!
-
Maintaining the dollar as an oil and reserve currency could be easily seen as in the national interests of the U.S.
That's undoubtedly true Slobodan, particularly if you have an interest in the oil industry. However, if your interests are in predominantly US based export manufacturing/production (including: owners/shareholders, employees, Federal & State revenue systems, etc., etc.) a high US dollar value makes it harder to compete in world markets and usually less profitable, even when you can. Especially if your primary competitors are based in countries/economies that manipulate exchange rates to keep the value of their own currency artificially low as a means of making their goods `cheaper' and `more competitive' in the same market. Witness what has been happening to US manufacturing industries over the last few decades.
-
Finally someone in this thread is adressing the core topic.
IS only targets one concrete result and that is the increase of civil unrest in France as a result of the opposition between the population of arab origins and the rest of the country. Killing innocents is just a means to that end.
This isn't the result of a pre-existing war btwn civilizations. On the contrary, this is the dangerous attempt of a group of smart outlaws to start a war btw civilization by spreading their nihilistic views of the world, their desire to end the world as we know it by making it explode from inside.
Any action likely to increase the hatred between people, including military retaliation, will serve their goal by generating more hatred and creating more terrorists, further worsening the vicious circle triggered, among other events, by the war in Irak.
When facing an enemy who is not afraid to die to generate more obscurantism, it is pointless to speak about the effectiveness of air strikes.
Cutting their sources of funding must obviously be done, but IMHO, the number one priority we should all be discussing, is how we can create more love for the populations of islamic origins in Western European countries.
The way I look at it, we have been forced into a tremendous opportunity to fix the many cracks in the theoretical model of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" since the social dimension of the story is central here. Either we succeed quickly to really provide equal opportunities to all the citizens of France and Belgium, regardless of their religions, communities, place of dwelling,... or many more people will die in similar attacks moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
This translates to "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves..." with the underlying assumption that ISIS
would respond to our turning the other cheek by abruptly changing
their core values. I can't see it.
-
This translates to "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves..." with the underlying assumption that ISIS
would respond to our turning the other cheek by abruptly changing
their core values. I can't see it.
What does lead to the "underlying assumption"?
That's not what the quoted post says.
-
Former ISIS hostage, French reporter tortured for 10 months: They *want* us to retaliate (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks?CMP=share_btn_tw)
It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.
He could be describing a lot of Americans too.
-
"This week, we are told to not get too excited over 129 people being slaughtered in the streets, concert halls, and cafés of Paris. In particular, we shouldn’t let minor inevitabilities such as mass carnage influence the West’s refugee and immigration policies...
.
...For example, the fact that one suicide bomber’s fingerprints showed he had come ashore as a refugee in Greece last month, where he was handed asylum papers allowing him to travel across Europe, shouldn’t reflect badly on Chancellor Merkel’s decision on a whim to suspend E.U. regulations in order to permanently alter Europe’s demographic balance."
http://takimag.com/article/four_ways_to_save_europe_steve_sailer#axzz3rrGqSI1r
-
Finally someone in this thread is adressing the core topic.
IS only targets one concrete result and that is the increase of civil unrest in France as a result of the opposition between the population of arab origins and the rest of the country. Killing innocents is just a means to that end.
This isn't the result of a pre-existing war btwn civilizations. On the contrary, this is the dangerous attempt of a group of smart outlaws to start a war btw civilization by spreading their nihilistic views of the world, their desire to end the world as we know it by making it explode from inside.
This is a typical tactical move when one wants to divert attention from the losses of ones own troups, engage in asymmetrical warfare.
Any action likely to increase the hatred between people, including military retaliation, will serve their goal by generating more hatred and creating more terrorists, further worsening the vicious circle triggered, among other events, by the war in Irak.
When facing an enemy who is not afraid to die to generate more obscurantism, it is pointless to speak about the effectiveness of air strikes.
Not quite that simple. The current French president is facing elections, and his outlook for reelection is/was grim. So it was predictable that he would step up the effort in reaction. This is an opportunity for him as well. These brainwashed (and under the influence of drugs) followers of extremism do not need to be bombarded to hate the rest of the world, fellow muslims no exception. Susceptible (and marginalized) persons apparently can radicalize within a few weeks, so when there is a perceived lack of a meaningful future, the adventure and status among peers becomes an easy choice.
Bombardments are but one element in a coordinated approach. Also, the bombardments of vital infrastructure have been limited, I've heard some 8 sorties per day by the US (which is a bit of a contrast with the 1000 per day in the invasion of Bagdad). But then the goal this time around is not to prepare for invasion, although it's not that clear what the objective actually is.
Cutting their sources of funding must obviously be done, but IMHO, the number one priority we should all be discussing, is how we can create more love for the populations of islamic origins in Western European countries.
Targeting the (financial/arms) resources is a more effective response, but here geopolitics (which are part of the cause already) make things increasingly difficult. Of the annual IS budget (they control some 2 billion US$ assets, and make 3-6 billion US$ annual revenue), some 750 million USD comes from sales of oil and gass (apparently a lot of which goes to their enemy the Assad Regime because he is cut off from other suppliers, and to Turkey), but the lower oil prices do not help them. They have plenty of arms, taken along by Iraqi officers from the Irak war and supplied by the US, but there are enough weapons to be had (indirectly) from various international (US/Russia) sources. They also make a lot of money from sales of other captured resources (food produce like grain, Phosphate, cement/concrete, and minerals), and they also collect tax (a.o. VAT and Road-tax), and they robbed banks (some 500 million US$).
The way I look at it, we have been forced into a tremendous opportunity to fix the many cracks in the theoretical model of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" since the social dimension of the story is central here. Either we succeed quickly to really provide equal opportunities to all the citizens of France and Belgium, regardless of their religions, communities, place of dwelling,... or many more people will die in similar attacks moving forward.
Besides weakening their infrastructures and support among local population, there obviously needs to be done much more to take away sympathy with marginalized segments of the western population. Lots of budget cuts have made things worse in that aspect, maybe especially in France and Belgium, but not only there. The influx of millions of refugees, which is used as a weapon, only makes matters worse because Western resources are limited and disruption of the social fabric is conceivable. Muslim countries are very absent in taking part in refugee relief, for a reason ...
It's a complex situation, mostly caused by geopolitics and proliferation of weapons in exchange for oil and other natural resources. Religious fundamentalism (all religions) also does not help. Thinking stops where Dogmas start. Solving something that has been created over centuries, and accelerated in the last 7 decades, cannot be done overnight. Radicals in the world will never be totally eliminated (just like crime cannot be totally defeated and police made unnecessary) so the best one can hope for is to reduce their presence and impact to 'acceptable proportions'.
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWqM1hMTho) is an interesting interview with a (unfortunately very rare) minority voice (Saudi-Born Singer Shams Bandar) in the Muslim community, on Egyptian television. She is right that the card of the victim role is played a lot by Muslims, without a critical look at themselves. But then Western society is not free of blame either. It's complex, and will take a lot of time and effort (education) to somewhat improve.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... the bombardments of vital infrastructure have been limited, I've heard some 8 sorties per day by the US (which is a bit of a contrast with the 1000 per day in the invasion of Bagdad). But then the goal this time around is not to prepare for invasion, although it's not that clear what the objective actually is....
Photo-op?
The influx of millions of refugees, which is used as a weapon, only makes matters worse because Western resources are limited and disruption of the social fabric is conceivable. Muslim countries are very absent in taking part in refugee relief, for a reason ...
+1
-
Muslim countries are very absent in taking part in refugee relief, for a reason
so how many refugees at this moment are in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, etc vs how many in Europe ? of you mean that muslim countries somehow owe Europe relief for Europe's proactive role in creating this mess in the first place ? which started way before Saudi Arabia formed as a state for example.
-
. . . muslim countries somehow owe Europe relief for Europe's proactive role in creating this mess in the first place ?
This little bit of pure fiction is repeated over and over until people believe it to be true. Europe is not without fault. The Sikes/Picot Agreement comes to mind. However Islam has been a violent, aggressive, dishonest religion/political system from its inception. It began with the goal of world domination and has never strayed from that. There are periods of respite, but world domination is the central goal of Islam. World War I didn't help matters any when Germany actively tried to foment Islamic Jihad to overthrow the British in Egypt, but that does not relieve the followers of Islam of the responsibility they must bear. Anyone who sincerely believes otherwise would do well to study the Quran a little bit.
-
I should add that I come to LULA for photography discussions and the Coffee Corner discussions are a complete distraction. I should stay out of this part of LULA.
-
so how many refugees at this moment are in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, etc vs how many in Europe ?
They are neighbors, the first countries to arrive at when fleeing from one's own home country. There is no choice, it happens to those neighbors, and they do get (some) funding from the West to accommodate them. Most refugees want to return to their home, if only it were safe. So it doesn't help them to be transported to countries of which they don't speak the language or understand the customs.
We are talking about temporary emergency first aid, out of humanitarian reasons. Or as a Kuwait official explained why they did nothing; "it's too expensive for them in Kuwait".
you mean that muslim countries somehow owe Europe relief for Europe's proactive role in creating this mess in the first place ? which started way before Saudi Arabia formed as a state for example.
You're being silly. We are talking about spontaneous humanitarian relief. Not much of that around in that region among their 'brothers'. I applaud the efforts of the direct neighbors, but they too are left in the cold by their brothers.
Muslims have been killing each other long before the USA became a fact, and it also didn't start with the crusades. But then blaming someone else, is soooooo much easier than a bit of critical introspection.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I should add that I come to LULA for photography discussions and the Coffee Corner discussions are a complete distraction.
Which is the very purpose of any coffee corner ;)
Speaking of coffee... which coffee are we talking about here? Turkish, Greek, Arabic, American, War-on-Christmas (a.k.a. $tarbucks) ones? Inquiring minds need to know. You see, in my country of birth we called it Turkish coffee. I then visit Greece and order a Turkish coffee and the waiter gives me a death stare and corrects me: "It is Greek coffee, Sir."
I think this forum needs to be subdivided accordingly. ;)
-
Speaking of coffee... which coffee are we talking about here? Turkish, Greek, Arabic, American, War-on-Christmas (a.k.a. $tarbucks) ones? Inquiring minds need to know. You see, in my country of birth we called it Turkish coffee. I then visit Greece and order a Turkish coffee and the waiter gives me a death stare and corrects me: "It is Greek coffee, Sir."
LOL! My Israeli brother in law was over with my sister some years ago for a visit. While my sister was busy at her academic meeting, he and I went to Zaytinya, a very nice local "Greek" tapas restaurant (started by a Spaniard). We just finished eating and the waiter asked if we would like some Turkish coffee to conclude the meal. My brother in law looked at the waiter and said, "you really serve Turkish coffee here?"
Hmmmm, this is really a good anecdote given the title of this sub-forum!!! ;D
-
Which is the very purpose of any coffee corner ;)
Speaking of coffee... which coffee are we talking about here? Turkish, Greek, Arabic, American, War-on-Christmas (a.k.a. $tarbucks) ones? Inquiring minds need to know. You see, in my country of birth we called it Turkish coffee. I then visit Greece and order a Turkish coffee and the waiter gives me a death stare and corrects me: "It is Greek coffee, Sir."
I think this forum needs to be subdivided accordingly. ;)
I am mostly a tea drinker. Taylor of Harrogate English Breakfast is my choice. However, when drinking coffee, my preference is for Kenya AA. Starbucks is over-roasted in my opinion. Do not order Turkish Coffee in Greece nor Greek Coffee in Turkey. It's best just to order coffee and hope for the best. Better than suffering the eye of death.
-
And, For those of you in the US: No need to go far. In 2003 the, then Chairman of the Committee on House Administration had the menus changed in three of Congress's cafeterias to exclude the name `french fries'. A response to Frances' disinclination to support the Iraq war. Hamburgers were similarly renamed during WWII and so on. So, what is an Islamophobe to do with Thanksgiving all but on us. Turkey is certainly out of the question ;)
-
... Turkey is certainly out of the question ;)
No wonder Obama pardons it. The rest of us, however... ;)
-
What ever happened to those very expensive tins of powdered instant coffee that were so popular on the east coast in the late 1970's? As I remember, they actually tasted pretty good.
-
And, For those of you in the US: No need to go far. In 2003 the, then Chairman of the Committee on House Administration had the menus changed in three of Congress's cafeterias to exclude the name `french fries'. A response to Frances' disinclination to support the Iraq war. Hamburgers were similarly renamed during WWII and so on. So, what is an Islamophobe to do with Thanksgiving all but on us. Turkey is certainly out of the question ;)
Every body knows that French fries come from Belgium, like the famous detective... probably the term was coined by someone who thinks that they are the same country...
-
Every body knows that French fries come from Belgium, like the famous detective... probably the term was coined by someone who thinks that they are the same country...
Just like the Hamburger was "invented" in Hamberg.
Hamberg, NY that is. :)
-
Subject matter.....Paris Attacks. IMO the last few posts are off topic looking disrespectful to the French people who suffered? :(
-
Subject matter.....Paris Attacks. IMO the last few posts are off topic looking disrespectful to the French people who suffered? :(
Pretty sure that no one in Paris is really that affected by posts on a photographic webpage forum. :)
-
Pretty sure that no one in Paris is really that affected by posts on a photographic webpage forum. :)
I possibly could have phrased it better? Members following the thread might feel it has become disrespectful to the French who have suffered. All of the threads on here end up going awry but surely in a thread as sensitive as this then ......?
-
Isn't it great, Stamper, that people who almost got at each other throats in this debate ended it with coffee and Belgium chocolate, after gulping a hamburger with French fries? ;)
-
Relax, Stamper, this is how the French are "disrespectful" to themselves, talking about drinks:
-
There's a time for levity and humour, Slobodan - this isn't one of them.
-
There's a time for levity and humour, Slobodan - this isn't one of them.
Is the verbal fighting that has been going on for ten pages more appropriate? Fine, pick the next controversial issue regarding the attack and let's continue.
-
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the terrible loss of life when the Russian airliner was blown up by a terrorist organization just recently. It seems to have been the same gang of ruthless murderers who were behind that. Also, most of the press seems to mention that tragedy only as a footnote in their reports. The current focus is on Paris (and rightly so), but the loss of life over the Sinai is equally tragic and to be condemned.
-
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the terrible loss of life when the Russian airliner...
Yes, with twice as many dead. Earlier this year, the same religious ideology was behind a university attack with more dead students than in Paris. Mass casualties by suicide bombers (or otherwise) in Lebanon and Iraq too.
It is hard and risky to wade into reasons why we react differently to similar tragedies, but if I'd venture a guess, I'd say we get desensitized over time for repeating tragedies. Airplane bombs are nothing new, and as horrible as it might sound, mass tragedies are just another Monday afternoon in Africa and the Middle East. Not to mention it is away from us, and it is "them," not "us" (again, as horrible as it sounds). Paris, however, is "us," not only civilization-wise, but also because "we" could have been there, it is "our" Paris, most of us visited at some point in our lives or have it on our bucket list at least.
-
Paris attacks: “I won't give you the gift of hating you"
Powerful and eloquent from one of the victims - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ-1iA-56k0
-
Yes, with twice as many dead. Earlier this year, the same religious ideology was behind a university attack with more dead students than in Paris. Mass casualties by suicide bombers (or otherwise) in Lebanon and Iraq too.
It is hard and risky to wade into reasons why we react differently to similar tragedies, but if I'd venture a guess, I'd say we get desensitized over time for repeating tragedies. Airplane bombs are nothing new, and as horrible as it might sound, mass tragedies are just another Monday afternoon in Africa and the Middle East. Not to mention it is away from us, and it is "them," not "us" (again, as horrible as it sounds). Paris, however, is "us," not only civilization-wise, but also because "we" could have been there, it is "our" Paris, most of us visited at some point in our lives or have it on our bucket list at least.
I think this is a very interesting question and, whilst I agree that it "hard and risky to wade into", it's a discussion I believe we might all benefit from if it can be kept within the bounds of `civilised debate'. Are we genetically `pre-programmed' to respond differently to people who are `not like us' in some way? Does the intensity of media coverage reflect or shape/lead public opinion? What part does perceived `victim culpability' play in our conscious or sub-conscious reasoning? A better understanding why some tragedies go almost `unnoticed' whilst others become instant sensations seems like a worthwhile field of enquiry.
-
As an afterthought and without wishing to divert discussion from the topic or trivialise: There are, perhaps, certain parallels in our approach to images. Why, for example, are images of some `celebrity', caught in an unguarded and potentially embarrassing moment `worth' tens of thousands of dollars whilst those of an `ordinary' person caught in the same situation worth nothing (or, in some situations, worth criminal prosecution)? What is it that allows people to cringe from or be outraged by some things whilst greeting other similar ones with a nod and a wink?
-
I don't know what media coverage you get but the russian airplane got plenty of headlines in Sweden. But of course it pales in comparison to the coverage of the Paris attacks. They are closer to home and we live with the very real threat of the same happening to us. Threat level here went from a 3 to 4 (of 5) and just now tonight one person beleived to be an IS fighter was arrested not two hours away from where I live. And I live in the far north of Europe.
-
The Paris attacks and the Russian plane bombing didn't, IMHO rightfully, get the same press coverage because the seriousness of the even isn't measured by the number of human casualties.
The seriouness of the event is measured by its symbolic ability to generate terror (a major historical city, situations many people can relate to,...) and by the possible consequences, in this case mostly determined by the stupid actions taken till now by president Hollande that could get use close to civil unrest in France.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
so how many refugees at this moment are in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, etc vs how many in Europe ?
Or Pakistan. Or Iran. The original statement is stunning in its ignorance.
-
I believe another reason the Russian airliner got less attention at first was that Russia was reluctant to say it was brought down by terrorists. They investigated other possible reasons for the crash until it became obvious it was an explosion that caused the plane to disintegrate at altitude. Air travel is extremely safe and there have been almost no crashes in of the scheduled airlines in the last few years, especially in the developed world. In years past however there have been cases of spectacular crashes and the news viewing public probably looks at them differently than they do a brazen terrorist suicide attack. Now that it is acknowledge that it was a terrorist bomb that brought down the plane, it has been overtaken by the Paris attack. There is certainly enough tragedy to go around. There was a period of hours when we thought my sister-in-law was on the plane that was intentionally crashed by the suicidal German co-pilot earlier this year. There is no such thing as a lesser tragedy.
-
Something that had escaped my attention is "Captagon"...http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/captogen-the-war-drug-that-fuels-isis-terrorism-and-savagery-3235986.html
-
so how many refugees at this moment are in Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, etc vs how many in Europe ?...
So, how many? Quoting some numbers and sources would be helpful.
-
... the stupid actions taken till now by president Hollande that could get use close to civil unrest in France.
What would those be?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Syrian_refugees_accepted_by_country
might prove a useful resource. the page itself has many citations, so you can verify to your heart's content.
-
What would those be?
Essentially a copy cat of what Bush did after 9.11.
A set of actions focused on retaliation.
Just read what I wrote above, it should be crystal clear.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Syrian_refugees_accepted_by_country
might prove a useful resource. the page itself has many citations, so you can verify to your heart's content.
Thanks. A quick look at the numbers suggests that the first three countries alone (Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan) already took more than the total estimated number of refugees? Given the constant and rapid movement of refugees across the continent, it seems that the numbers are becoming obsolete equally rapidly.
-
I didn't even read the content, just skimmed the page to see that is HAD content AND citations for it ;) I got no dog in this fight. I'm just here to help!
-
... I'm just here to help!
Appreciated.
I think the disconnect between numbers (if any) might come from the fact that it is not just Syrians that are refugees. And not just those fleeing wars, like from Afghanistan and Iraq, but also a large number of economic migration from Africa and other countries, e.g. Albania. I just read the news that Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia are blocking economic migration as of today, allowing only passport holders from the first three aforementioned countries.
-
... it seems that the numbers are becoming obsolete equally rapidly.
They're coming obsolete very rapidly! In a TV report from last night I heard of 3 Million refugees in Turkey and approximately 830,000 in Germany. Naturally these masses are not only fleeing Syria, but various countries and for different reasons. Reminds me of the secure life I live, despite my (petty?) problems.
-
They're coming obsolete very rapidly! In a TV report from last night I heard of 3 Million refugees in Turkey and approximately 830,000 in Germany.
Those German numbers are the expected numbers arriving per year, it doesn't stop there, and it has not just started. And that is also before families are reunited, these are often individuals who may be allowed to to bring their families if they are nationalized, instead of getting a 'temporary' refugee status. This obviously cannot continue a this (accelerating) pace.
Naturally these masses are not only fleeing Syria, but various countries and for different reasons. Reminds me of the secure life I live, despite my (petty?) problems.
Indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Here in Sweden we had 2100 imigrants arriving each day. After introducing border controls it is 1500/day. We are just a minor country with 9 million inhabitants.
Obviously, this cannot go on and other solutions must be found.
We must also find ways to make those who are allowed to stay a part of our society, not an easy task.
Best regards
Erik
Those German numbers are the expected numbers arriving per year, it doesn't stop there, and it has not just started. And that is also before families are reunited, these are often individuals who may be allowed to to bring their families if they are nationalized, instead of getting a 'temporary' refugee status. This obviously cannot continue a this (accelerating) pace.
Indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Those German numbers are the expected numbers arriving per year, it doesn't stop there, and it has not just started.
As I understood the report, that was the refugee count as of mid November 2015 in Germany. Expected now, are over one million. Oddly enough, the exact number of individuals already registered is unknown (or so we are told).
-
Hi,
Here in Sweden we had 2100 imigrants arriving each day. After introducing border controls it is 1500/day. We are just a minor country with 9 million inhabitants.
Obviously, this cannot go on and other solutions must be found.
The solution has always been around but European elites pretend it doesn't exist. Enforce the border, and stop admitting Third World populations, especially from Islamic countries. If you can't do this, lie down and accept more of what's coming.
We must also find ways to make those who are allowed to stay a part of our society, not an easy task.
I see. It isn't enough to give them lifelong welfare benefits. The West must also potty train them.
-
The solution has always been aroubd but European elites pretend it doesn't exist. Enforce the border, and stop admitting Third World populations, especially from Islamic countries. If you can't do this, lie down and accept more of what's coming.
I see. It isn't enough to give them lifelong welfare benefits. The West must also potty train them.
There are always answers that are easier to envision than implement.
-
Is being a refugee always considered a one-way ticket?
Or once an area is no longer a threat, will the refugees be sent back to their homeland? Of course the problem would be determining when an area is no longer a threat, but that's another problem.
I fear it is the former and that refugee is synonymous of permanent immigrant and I am not sure that is really the right way to consider refugees.
To me there is a big difference between providing temporary help to people in need and just moving a group of people to the head of the immigration line.
-
Is being a refugee always considered a one-way ticket?
Or once an area is no longer a threat, will the refugees be sent back to their homeland? Of course the problem would be determining when an area is no longer a threat, but that's another problem.
I fear it is the former and that refugee is synonymous of permanent immigrant and I am not sure that is really the right way to consider refugees.
To me there is a big difference between providing temporary help to people in need and just moving a group of people to the head of the immigration line.
look @ Australia - they simply put refugees in camps outside of the country.
-
The solution has always been around but European elites pretend it doesn't exist. Enforce the border, and stop admitting Third World populations, especially from Islamic countries. If you can't do this, lie down and accept more of what's coming.
I see. It isn't enough to give them lifelong welfare benefits. The West must also potty train them.
Do refugees spend a lifetime on benefits? Try telling that to the thousands of refugees who came into Britain in the 1930's and 40's. I think they became integrated and worked hard. I'm sure the most of the refugees want safety and normality - not to sit around living off state benefits.
Jim
-
..I'm sure the most of the refugees want safety and normality - not to sit around living off state benefits.
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what was happening with certain nationalities from my former country, faking political asylum in Europe. You know, the ones who prefer their children in bulk, closer to a dozen than not. Multiply child benefits x dozen, ad housing subsidies and other benefits, and you can indeed live a life doing nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. There is plenty of spare time for engaging in drug trafficking, sex trade, and other endeavours.
If all they need is safety and normality, they could have stayed in the first peaceful country they enter. Instead, they are rushing all the way through to reach the final destination: countries with the most generous benefits. Why are they, for instance, refusing to stay in France, but are pushing (rioting) to get into Britain instead?
-
Hi,
Enforcing borders are not that easy. Lot of countries in southern Europe are building barbed wire fences along borders to keep illegal immigrants out.
Regarding integration, no country can afford to pay a lot of benefits to a lot of people. If you can get the immigrants into work they will contribute to GNP and pay taxes. So that is a win/win situation for all.
Another side is that if we cannot give those people a decent living and let them be isolated it will just grow extremism, hatred and so on. We have something like 300 (or so) individuals who went to fight for ISIS. That is a small part of the moslem population here, which is around 500 kpersons, I would think, but scary enough.
Best regards
Erik
The solution has always been around but European elites pretend it doesn't exist. Enforce the border, and stop admitting Third World populations, especially from Islamic countries. If you can't do this, lie down and accept more of what's coming.
I see. It isn't enough to give them lifelong welfare benefits. The West must also potty train them.
-
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what was happening with certain nationalities from my former country, faking political asylum in Europe. You know, the ones who prefer their children in bulk, closer to a dozen than not. Multiply child benefits x dozen, ad housing subsidies and other benefits, and you can indeed live a life doing nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. There is plenty of spare time for engaging in drug trafficking, sex trade, and other endeavours.
If all they need is safety and normality, they could have stayed in the first peaceful country they enter. Instead, they are rushing all the way through to reach the final destination: countries with the most generous benefits. Why are they, for instance, refusing to stay in France, but are pushing (rioting) to get into Britain instead?
Lord knows, I got out!
I'm not sure that the UK does have a more generous welfare system nowadays TBH, but these things are always difficult to compare.
-
The solution has always been around but European elites pretend it doesn't exist. Enforce the border, and stop admitting Third World populations, especially from Islamic countries. If you can't do this, lie down and accept more of what's coming.
I see. It isn't enough to give them lifelong welfare benefits. The West must also potty train them.
Enforcing borders is easy. That does not solve the problem with refugees. You have to solve the problems in the countries of origin. The most acute problem right now is getting rid of Assad, then IS, then some solution in Afghanistan. That would decrease the number of immigrants to Sweden by 4/5 or so.
-
Maybe male refugees should be trained to fight and sent back to reclaim their land from the terrorists?
-
Maybe male refugees should be trained to fight and sent back to reclaim their land from the terrorists?
About that:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews ended his show Tuesday night with two numbers — the number of Syrians the U.S. has recruited to help fight against the Islamic State and the number of total Syrian refugees.
“Let me finish tonight with two numbers that don’t make sense,” Matthews said on his show before starkly contrasting the number of Syrian refugees — 4 million — and the number of Syrians recruited by the U.S. to fight the Islamic State — four. “Is there just one in a million Syrians willing to fight for Syria? Is that the deal? Is it?” Matthews asked.
Source here. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/18/chris-matthews-briefly-breaks-with-left-highlights-two-numbers-on-syrian-refugee-crisis-that-dont-make-sense/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons)
Also, worth noting is the contrast between a historical (up until the current crisis) perception of refugees as mostly women, children and elderly, the contemporary image is about 80% of military age single males (which, coincidentally or not, happens to be the prime demographics for terrorists). Then again, maybe they are ready to fight, just not against who we think they should.
-
... If you can get the immigrants into work...
As if Europe doesn't already have a very high unemployment, especially among the youth.
-
Maybe male refugees should be trained to fight and sent back to reclaim their land from the terrorists?
you miss the point that who can and will already does fight for Assad, for US/NATO/Sunni backed terrorists or for IS(IL).
-
They aren't fighting. Take a look at the news. You'll see so many are just young males. If they don't want to fight for their land, why should we? Of course, it may reach the point that we have to go over their to protect ourselves. But then, add conquerors, we'll have a right to decide who runs it. Then all those young males will stay in their adopted countries, many sponging of the native people starting their
own terror activities to the increduality of their hosts.
-
Enforcing borders is easy. That does not solve the problem with refugees. You have to solve the problems in the countries of origin. The most acute problem right now is getting rid of Assad, then IS, then some solution in Afghanistan. That would decrease the number of immigrants to Sweden by 4/5 or so.
And now that Russia has swept in, getting rid of Assad just got a lot more difficult.
-
You are not doing anything either. You are just moving electrons in a photo forum.
For which I think I deserve one of these: ;)
The FaceBook War Fighter Ribbon.
For keyboard gallantry & exceptionally meritorious service as a 2d Remote Operator- and serving as Team intelligence analyst while deployed to your local coffee shop as part of Operation French Flag My Profile. Your exemplary performance of duty culminating in this distinguished period of service reflects great credit upon you, the 2d Affliction Shirt Supply Company, 18th Barista Battalion, 4th LL Bean Division, and UC Berkley.
Your Country and Internet Service Providers Salute you! 💻🗣🇺🇸
-
For which I think I deserve one of these: ;)
Funnily enough, that's more than I ever got actually going to Afghanistan as a real analyst!
-
http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/
-
http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/
Good article, Rajan, thanks!
-
Derb, provocative as always -
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/obamas-agenda-and-the-treason-of-the-establishment/
-
Our eldest and her boyfriend went to Paris this week and report that all is normal, all is open and all are friendly. Oh, and they also came back engaged so it's not all bad news coming out of the place after all.
-
Shot this one night listening to the stuff about the Parisian disaster; the guy on the screen was one of the ubiquitous 'experts' tv always keeps locked away in a drawer for suitable airing moments.
Rob C
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/5563381_orig.jpg)
-
On the other hand don't we have a tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?
An other side to it, I heard it in local (Swedish radio). Told by a survivor of Auschwitz who used to be Middle East correspondent for Swedish radio.
In India there used to be a tradition to burn the wife of a deceased man together with his husband's body. A young wife of a man who died tried to escape destiny and found refuge at a British military base, the family of the deceased trailed her to the base and I they were met by a young British officer.
So they told him about their traditions…
The British officer listened to them carefully and than said. We British have great respect for your traditions. But, we Brittish have also our own traditions. One of those traditions is that those who burn young, innocent women alive we hang by the neck.
I don't know about the truth in this story, but it tells a tale, worth some consideration.
Now, this was in context of some female immigrants being killed by family members after having "unappropriate relations". Still, it illustrates that we can have respect for traditions but there are also values that cannot be compromised. I think that immigration is quite OK, but once you choose to live in a society, you need to live within the laws and traditions of that country.
Best regards
Erik
Derb, provocative as always -
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/obamas-agenda-and-the-treason-of-the-establishment/
-
Derb, provocative as always -
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/obamas-agenda-and-the-treason-of-the-establishment/
Not really. Just racist garbage. To be provocative it would have to at least attempt to make sense.
-
Here is how we stop terrorism in our country.
1. Ban Christmas trees and Bing Crosby music. They only provoke the terrorists.
2. Increase the number of immigrants from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and the Russian Caucasus. It is our moral duty.
3. Fine or imprison anyone who insults Islam or criticizes Middle East immigration. Just like France did to their leading presidential candidate.
Call your congressman and make it happen so more of us don't have to die!