IMMIGRATION thread

[wooly_mammoth]

That too but I remember seeing them in the news stating quite clearly that they are "români” which means ”romanians”. At least those that are still in Romania do not like to be called ”rromi”, which means ”romani” (though it is the politically correct term) but still prefer ”țigani”, which is ”gypsies”.

[Husar]

Now, this is understandable but it presents a bit of a problem when, say, the men start of congregate in the even outside their houses and get a bit drunk and rowdy rather than going to the tavern and getting rowdy there and then rolling home, which is more or less what I assume German men do.

Certainly not the ones who were sitting in front of the door of the house I lived in with the rest of their family and friends, often screaming obscenities at each other during the night and leaving a mess behind. As I said somewhere, show me the difference to natives living in the same area.


It gets a bit more awkward when all the children clump together at school and speak their native language together because they'll be much harder for the children to police - to know if someone is being bullied etc.

Yes, I'm aware, there are also children at certain schools who threaten their teachers by dangling them outside a window. Usually a problem in the lower class schools in Germany though, where most of the refugees end up since they usually don't arrive with well-filled bank accounts and are "dumped" by the government in the cheapest areas. As I said before, the ghettoization is more or less by design, a very flawed design indeed but not entirely the fault of the immigrants. What I really hate about this are people who already leave their neighborhood if the government settles an immigrant family or two there, they just contribute to the ghettoization by indirectly demanding and helping it. I am also fully aware that we cannot accept too many people at once, which would also not be a problem if they were properly distributed across Europe, but instead they are clumped in one or two countries. Granted, they want to come here and even throw stones if they can't, but I have no problems with them being either forced to go elsewhere or not let in at all if they think they can demand that. Integration is not only the burden of the immigrant, it is something the entire society and especially the politics have to support. Crating ghettos and expecting them to integrate is obviously a big failure in most cases.


Now a whole district of the town - at this point you're basically going to have a self contained community, there's no real chance of "integration" into German society, the best you can hope for is co-operation and coexistence, but you now have a new, separate, community in the town.

Yes, as I said, this is not new to me, it's just not a reason to be xenophobic.


Now, different people have different thresholds they are willing to accept, some will accept a single family, some a few in one street, some will accept whole districts in towns and cities being transformed so long as they obey the law - and some will make excuses for the newcomers and claim we shouldn't be so hard on them for not following our laws.

Kad is clearly fairly far down on the scale, probably more than one family to a street but below the level where you get any clumping together on street corners.

Yes, that's the problem with the thresholds, how many English homeless are tolerated in the richer neighborhoods of London?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/23/anti-homeless-spikes-inhumane-defensive-architecture

Do the homeless have muslim culture nowadays or is that part of the debate maybe missing the actual problem?

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah, I'd like to answer...

But I will refrain from answering till the BR removes their rule of no race related issues. I mean, if I wanted to be PC I wouldn't hang in the backroom...

If that is the new standard, I quite frankly have better things to do.

[AE Bravo]

Evidently you have nothing better to talk about.

[Gilrandir]

Some mayor of a German city said he'd like to trade some eastern euros for more Syrian refugees if he could during a conference where everyone was asked to talk about problems openly.


Was he the mayor of an ex-DDR city?:inquisitive:

[Hooahguy]

Yeah, I'd like to answer...

But I will refrain from answering till the BR removes their rule of no race related issues. I mean, if I wanted to be PC I wouldn't hang in the backroom...

If that is the new standard, I quite frankly have better things to do.

Tensions were getting too high for the Backroom and we needed to ease the tension. It is just a temporary measure until things cool off. End of story.

[Beskar]

It applies to new topics, you can discuss and keep immigration in this thread. If you couldn't, we would have locked this thread.

[HopAlongBunny]

Block settlement is not all bad.
The upside is it provides a safe familiar base for immigrants to acclimatize to the culture. It allows government the ability to target funding and programs designed to accelerate and ease the integration process.
The downside (or upside) is the creation of a "brokerage" of political and economic influence.
In party politics it is a rare organizer who will turn down an offer of 1000 votes delivered to a nomination or voting station.
Community leaders (who have mastered the language and norms) trade support for fulfillment or the promise of fulfillment of community needs.
The process is streamlined and fairly efficient but open to corruption. Some would argue that the very possibility of abuse, acts as further incentive to master the new environment.

[Montmorency]

Block settlement is not all bad.
The upside is it provides a safe familiar base for immigrants to acclimatize to the culture. It allows government the ability to target funding and programs designed to accelerate and ease the integration process.
The downside (or upside) is the creation of a "brokerage" of political and economic influence.
In party politics it is a rare organizer who will turn down an offer of 1000 votes delivered to a nomination or voting station.
Community leaders (who have mastered the language and norms) trade support for fulfillment or the promise of fulfillment of community needs.
The process is streamlined and fairly efficient but open to corruption. Some would argue that the very possibility of abuse, acts as further incentive to master the new environment.

This was a large part of the driver towards local Party Machines in United States history, until they were broken by post-Nixon electoral reforms.

Ironically, this corrupt system is what produced most of the great statesmen of post-Civil War America.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

sic

The point is that we already have enough to deal with in our own cities - we shouldn't be importing problems.

The point is also that you, and I, and yes Kadagar, are all enlightened humane people - the general population is not anywhere near as forgiving and should not be expected to be.


Block settlement is not all bad.
The upside is it provides a safe familiar base for immigrants to acclimatize to the culture. It allows government the ability to target funding and programs designed to accelerate and ease the integration process.
The downside (or upside) is the creation of a "brokerage" of political and economic influence.
In party politics it is a rare organizer who will turn down an offer of 1000 votes delivered to a nomination or voting station.
Community leaders (who have mastered the language and norms) trade support for fulfillment or the promise of fulfillment of community needs.
The process is streamlined and fairly efficient but open to corruption. Some would argue that the very possibility of abuse, acts as further incentive to master the new environment.

None of this sounds good, though.

In other news, thousands of people crossed into Croatia today and then hundreds breached the line of riot Police - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34283152

8,900 people in a day who refuse to obey the law and are willing to use violence to get what they feel they are entitled to?

Where's my Toga...

[AE Bravo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOplRD_kBbU

Ouch.

[Greyblades]

Got anything for those of us who cant speak german or arabic?

[Husar]

Got anything for those of us who cant speak german or arabic?

He complains that the Saudis and the Gulf states do nothing for the Syrians even though they are supposed to be fellow Muslims. Then he says they are not really Muslims (the governments at least) and that he would like to kiss all Germans for giving refuge to Muslims even though the Germans aren't Muslims (kuffar). He also mentions that the Muslim world doesn't/shouldn't really have borders and stuff and generally has a very religious world view apparently. I appreciate the kisses though.

[Gilrandir]

Tensions were getting too high for the Backroom and we needed to ease the tension. It is just a temporary measure until things cool off. End of story.



It applies to new topics, you can discuss and keep immigration in this thread. If you couldn't, we would have locked this thread.

If two moderators can't agree on the fate of a thread how can you expect Europe to adopt a common standpoint on the subject the thread discusses?

[Tuuvi]

Here's a relevant American political cartoon from 1903:

http://imgur.com/4GGibUO

It's been 110 years and the US has not turned into some sort of Southern European hell-hole. I'm not arguing for un-restricted immigration but I don't think Middle Eastern and African migrants are going to destroy Europe either.

[wooly_mammoth]

I'm not arguing for un-restricted immigration but I don't think Middle Eastern and African migrants are going to destroy Europe either.

Their refusal to identify themselves and follow legal procedures, as well as the prowess in urban combat they have shown at the borders of Hungary and Croatia (20 police officers injured in Hungary and one or two children that were probably used as projectiles lol) make me doubt that.

[Beskar]

If two moderators can't agree on the fate of a thread how can you expect Europe to adopt a common standpoint on the subject the thread discusses?

We don't disagree. I simply said a clarification to the exception of this thread.

[Viking]

Here's a relevant American political cartoon from 1903:

http://imgur.com/4GGibUO

It's been 110 years and the US has not turned into some sort of Southern European hell-hole. I'm not arguing for un-restricted immigration but I don't think Middle Eastern and African migrants are going to destroy Europe either.

Just as one might object to a comparison to last days of the Roman empire, one might object to a comparison to the US.

The most obvious difference is that the US is nation of immigrants. With the exception of 'native' Americans, most Americans can say that their ancestors came from this or that European or African country at that or that time. That means new immigrants don't look that out of place in the US. In comparison, my own ancestors (minus some Danish ones) might have come to this area ~ 10 000 years ago. Most of the population in Europe have a connection to the countries they occupy through thousands of years. This creates a schism between new arrivals and ancient arrivals, unless there is assimilation.

Some other things:

- Europe is filling up - both literally and non-literally. Some places really are getting crowded, but there are also national parks (and more rural areas not legally recognised) that people want to preserve, necessary farmland, opposition to further urbanisation and areas that are simply inhospitable. I imagine things looked rather different in the US over a 100 years ago; both physically and in terms of attitudes.
- there is still a significant split in the US population between the original natives, the population of European origin and the population of African origin
- the cultures where the immigrants came from were typically not too different from the cultures that the current Americans themselves came from

That latter point seems especially relevant. I am not aware of Europeans not integrating properly in other European countries being a common problem (international criminals are a problem, but that's largely a separate topic - they take advantage of the open borders), despite there being significant migration internally in Europe.

[Papewaio]

If two moderators can't agree on the fate of a thread how can you expect Europe to adopt a common standpoint on the subject the thread discusses?

A) democracy is not about lockstep agreement
B) everyone should self moderate themselves in the Backroom
C) having said that, whilst the two help moderate others, they are not both moderators.

[Gilrandir]

We don't disagree. I simply said a clarification to the exception of this thread.

Oh really? At 17.39 moderator X said the thread was closed until the things have cooled down. At 18.23 of the same day moderator Y thought things have already cooled down and re-opened the thread. Perhaps the spirit of the work ethic would have required to let the first call stay and let those who wish to continue discussion open new thread(s) if they liked. Concerted decisions as far as the immigrants are concerned seem to pose a problem for Europeans.



A) democracy is not about lockstep agreement
B) everyone should self moderate themselves in the Backroom
C) having said that, whilst the two help moderate others, they are not both moderators.

I'm afraid European powers-that-be follow this pattern in dealing with immigration issue which is why the EU is having a hard time.

[Husar]

Daily reminder that these young able bodied men abandoned their homes and their families for comfort.

Who wouldn't?

Or to ask from a different angle, would you rather see them commit lots of war crimes for the evil dictator or one of the evil islamist factions?

[Fragony]

Who wouldn't?

Or to ask from a different angle, would you rather see them commit lots of war crimes for the evil dictator or one of the evil islamist factions?

Most aren't refugees, only a small percentage is

[Husar]

Most aren't refugees, only a small percentage is

According to my country, around 40-50%, wouldn't call that a small percentage. And that's counting all asylum seekers, I was referring to Syrians mostly in my last reply.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

According to my country, around 40-50%, wouldn't call that a small percentage. And that's counting all asylum seekers, I was referring to Syrians mostly in my last reply.

So 40-50 are asylum seekers, how many of those will be granted asylum?

Look - we have thousands of people who are basically beating up the locals and demanding access to Europe's gooey centre - I doubt it's because they prefer German to Greek weather.

Anyway, the real problem here is the same as the Euro - common institutions without common governance.

Like the EUro this is something the UK managed to remain apart from.

[AE Bravo]

Daily reminder that these young able bodied men abandoned their homes and their families for comfort.
Bruh you'd either be burning crosses or in Mexico if your place got Mad Max'd too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bruh you'd either be burning crosses or in Mexico if your place got Mad Max'd too.


Pfft.

You new-worlders don't understand.

[Husar]

So 40-50 are asylum seekers, how many of those will be granted asylum?

I think there is a misunderstanding, I meant to say that 40-50% of asylum seekers are accepted as valid asylum seekers after relatively thorough considerations. The entire process doesn't take months because we are careless in checking their applications. Although they do want to speed it up now since it keeps the people in limbo for too long.


Look - we have thousands of people who are basically beating up the locals and demanding access to Europe's gooey centre - I doubt it's because they prefer German to Greek weather.

Anyway, the real problem here is the same as the Euro - common institutions without common governance.

Like the EUro this is something the UK managed to remain apart from.

If you have nothing to loose, why settle for another bad place? It's common sense.
As for the lack of EU integration, people clearly wanted that in the referendums, no?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, on average, 45% of the 500,000 people who have come to Europe this year are deemed to have valid claims by Germany? Or just the Syrians?

Just so I fully understand.

If those are the sort of numbers we're talking about then I'm genuinely inclined to say we should just ramp up military production and take over you everyone's sake

As to the lack of integration - the problem is integration proceeded WITHOUT Referenda, leading to the democratic deficit and the current paralysis because the leaders of various EU nations know that doing the best thing for the EU won't get them re-elected.

[Beskar]

Oh really? At 17.39 moderator X said the thread was closed until the things have cooled down. At 18.23 of the same day moderator Y thought things have already cooled down and re-opened the thread.

There was no closing or opening of this thread. You are either completely misreading or you are imagining things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel oppressed, more please!

*Strips*

:yes:

[Husar]

So, on average, 45% of the 500,000 people who have come to Europe this year are deemed to have valid claims by Germany? Or just the Syrians?

Just so I fully understand.

No, that was 2014 or so. If you want the numbers for this year, you have to ask your local seer. I don't think 500000 have even arrived yet.
It is possible that of the Syrians, more will be accepted, but that would just debunk the claim that only a minority are valid refugees even more. Unless you want to claim that the immigration agencies are completely unable to do their jobs and the judges in courts are all stupid.


If those are the sort of numbers we're talking about then I'm genuinely inclined to say we should just ramp up military production and take over you everyone's sake

Not quite sure what you are saying or why.


As to the lack of integration - the problem is integration proceeded WITHOUT Referenda, leading to the democratic deficit and the current paralysis because the leaders of various EU nations know that doing the best thing for the EU won't get them re-elected.

If I'm not mistaken the integration is not quite the one that was wanted, no?

[Gilrandir]

There was no closing or opening of this thread. You are either completely misreading or you are imagining things.

I may be mistaken, but when I read Hooahguy's message in green I saw no reply options at the bottom of the posts and the phrase "end of the story" used in it was quite unequivocal.

[Husar]

Something that has been on my mind for a long time now, is that while we keep discussing cultural matters for the most part, there is also the "they just want our money"-angle, where even the counter-argument often goes to "overall, immigrants pay more taxes than they get, and we all profit from them monetarily".

But I find this angle very interesting from other perspectives, for example the one where they are blamed for wanting to have a better life with more money or better job opportunities.
On the one hand this argument that they will take something away from us if they come seems to counter the typical capitalist argument that one person gaining wealth does not mean the wealth of another decreases. Even if you argue that they will get government money from our taxes, they WILL spend it on consumerist stuff that makes our companies earn more money and provide more jobs, no? I am aware that it's more complicated than that, but I'm trying to get at the basic assumption, is wealth relative or can we all get wealthier or is capitalism a lie after all? What do you believe?
On the other hand it seems as though people are in this sense just blaming them for having the same greed we do, if you say they just come here for the good jobs, are you saying that wanting a good job is a bad thing? I mean the argument usually implies that they have a bad character because they want to be wealthier. Who here does not want to be wealthier? Have you ever felt bad about getting job over another candidate? Are you content if you get a C at school while everybody else gets As and Bs? I can see this as some sort of realpolitik argument that if we can get ahead by locking them out, we should, but then the implication that they have bad character for opposing this attempt is hypocrisy because they just do the same thing we do, they just have a far less wealthy starting position at the beginning of the game. Which also seems a typical capitalist tactic, to blame all the problems on the poor, which is a good way to make the middle class accept that the rich slowly strip them of their money as well.

And a linky for reference: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

It's "funny" how the poor are blamed for taking all the things away from the middle class when the rich get more and more of all our stuff every day.
And I think the Middle Class is complicit in this, it does not criticize the rich because its members hope to be rich themselves one day, it would be like criticizing their idols. So they/we pick on the poor instead because we don't want to be like them anyway and they are convenient targets. As we say in Germany "wenn zwei sich streiten, freut sich der dritte", roughly translated: "when two people fight, the third is happy".

[Hooahguy]

I may be mistaken, but when I read Hooahguy's message in green I saw no reply options at the bottom of the posts and the phrase "end of the story" used in it was quite unequivocal.
Well I didnt close the thread. Or maybe I accidentally did. Im pretty new at this whole thing. Until now my job as a moderator only consisted of deleting spam threads and pretending that I was a necessary part of running the Rome 2 section. :book2:

[Beskar]

Well I didnt close the thread. Or maybe I accidentally did. Im pretty new at this whole thing. Until now my job as a moderator only consisted of deleting spam threads and pretending that I was a necessary part of running the Rome 2 section. :book2:
Considering I didn't reopen it either nor close it, it must be gremlins.

[Viking]

On the other hand it seems as though people are in this sense just blaming them for having the same greed we do, if you say they just come here for the good jobs, are you saying that wanting a good job is a bad thing?

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

[Montmorency]

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

It is simply a fact that virtually-all refugees to the First World are also economic migrants.

This shouldn't be difficult to grasp: 'Well, my home country is screwed and I cannot tolerate staying here any longer - I might even get killed! Where can I go to that is both safe and will provide good opportunities for myself and my children/family?'

Whether or not you think that makes the situation more acceptable is irrelevant, as that is the basic logic motivating all refugees traveling long distances to prosperous European countries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

US announced we will take another 30,000 refugees over two years. And another 100,000 in 2017, if I remember correctly.

[Papewaio]

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

So you'd prefer refugees who don't want to work then?

[Husar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOnXh3NN9w

[Fragony]

US announced we will take another 30,000 refugees over two years. And another 100,000 in 2017, if I remember correctly.

If America wants to be of any use I would prefer it if they use their political power for shelter in the region. The people who need help the most don't have the means to go to Europe.

[Viking]

It is simply a fact that virtually-all refugees to the First World are also economic migrants.

Irrelevant to the point. It was implicitly understood in what I wrote that an immediate threat to their life is not among the reasons for migrating.



So you'd prefer refugees who don't want to work then?

They aren't refugees, but work migrants. Work migrants can be returned if they don't have any work. Refugees can't.

[Montmorency]

Irrelevant to the point. It was implicitly understood in what I wrote that an immediate threat to their life is not among the reasons for migrating.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point. Maybe we're hung up over what constitutes or qualifies as a refugee?

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

[Fragony]

I don't see how that's relevant to my point. Maybe we're hung up over what constitutes or qualifies as a refugee?

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

There are perfectly viable ways, there are European ambasades that have to take any aplication into consideration. They can be helped from there should it be needed. Most real refugees are just glad they are safe though, Turkey has been really generous to those who are really in need and can't afford Nikes and iPhones.

[Montmorency]

There are perfectly viable ways, there are European ambasades that have to take any aplication into consideration. They can be helped from there should it be needed. Most real refugees are just glad they are safe though, Turkey has been really generous to those who are really in need and can't afford Nikes and iPhones.

I agree in the sense that the EU needs to implement some common policies to deal with the issue of undocumented migrants such that they can be stopped from hiking cross-country or swamping train stations.

The Dublin regulation and haphazard management of the situation makes it so that refugees tend to move away or avoid authorities if they think that registration will entail a hiatus wherever they are at the moment. End Dublin, identify everyone, get them to the best shelters we can find or erect on short notice - and you get the crisis sorted, at least for the next few months. It buys time to figure out what's going to be done with all these people.

[Fragony]

I agree in the sense that the EU needs to implement some common policies to deal with the issue of undocumented migrants such that they can be stopped from hiking cross-country or swamping train stations.

The Dublin regulation and haphazard management of the situation makes it so that refugees tend to move away or avoid authorities if they think that registration will entail a hiatus wherever they are at the moment. End Dublin, identify everyone, get them to the best shelters we can find or erect on short notice - and you get the crisis sorted, at least for the next few months. It buys time to figure out what's going to be done with all these people.


Sounds perfectly sound to me

[Viking]

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

I am considerings scenarios where they would never have had any refugee status that could be nulled out in the first place. The definition of 'refugee' is relevant here, yes.

[Gilrandir]

On the other hand it seems as though people are in this sense just blaming them for having the same greed we do, if you say they just come here for the good jobs, are you saying that wanting a good job is a bad thing?


It is not a bad thing per se, it is just wrong to demand it in the way they do. I mean more qualified and educated people from other countries may have to prove they want a job in Gemany and are qualified enough to get one, spend money and time getting a permit or a visa or both and may be denied either and stay where they were still wishing for a job in Germany.

The refugees/immigrants' modus operandi is dropping with their numerous family and relatives plop on Hauptbahnhof (or what it's called in Munich) and only then starting to prove anything. Moreover, they behave as if the country which they chose to afflict is obliged to feed them, shelter them, provide them with work and their kids with education; and they are much exasperated if they don't see the tables laid for them and money distributed at will in whatever place they might choose to grace with their presence.

If it were about fleeing from war, the first safe place (say, in Turkey or Greece) would suffice. So those who come to Europe's heartlands are immigrants, not refugees.

Just think: the Syrian conflict has been in evidence for 4 odd years and now it is not much hotter than, say, 2 or 3 years ago. Why are we witnessing the deluge right now, at this very moment?

[Fragony]

I am considerings scenarios where they would never have had any refugee status that could be nulled out in the first place. The definition of 'refugee' is relevant here, yes.

Yes, take in mind that only very few are from minorities that are at actual risk, some are. But most 'refugees' are sunni-mislims who aren't hunted down by fellow sunni-muslims. We should help the Kurds, the christians, the muslims of a different persuation.

[Husar]

They aren't refugees, but work migrants.

That's complete rubbish, if they flee from a war or another danger, then they are usually refugees.


The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

[Gilrandir]

That's complete rubbish, if they flee from a war or another danger, then they are usually refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

[Fragony]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

If they bring their problems with then I would rather call them colonists, a refugee flees from his problems, a migrant leaves the troubles behind, a colonist takes it with him. No shortage of colonists furiously screaming Alluha Akhbar.

[Husar]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

Maybe they're just fleeing from the horrible conditions in refugee camps in poor places which are completely overburdened?

[Fragony]

Maybe they're just fleeing from the horrible conditions in refugee camps in poor places which are completely overburdened?

Maybe they are not?

[Greyblades]

I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

[Fragony]

I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

yeah someone has a hand in the skirts that makes the Mona Lisa smile.

[Viking]

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

That's one way of defining refugees.


I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

In the case of Syrians, it is not merely the want for a better life. The war is a spark.

[Montmorency]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

So they're both, glad you understand. :yes:


In the case of Syrians, it is not merely the want for a better life. The war is a spark.

I agree. In fact, this is a pillar of my position on technical dual-status.

What I see is that you would like them to be identified as non-refugees to avoid any obligations toward them. But isn't that a different question, what sort of obligations countries owe to refugees, and under what circumstances?

[Husar]

That's one way of defining refugees.

Yeh, it's not like a lot of countries agree with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#/media/File:Refugeeconvention.PNG

:rolleyes:

[Tuuvi]

Just as one might object to a comparison to last days of the Roman empire, one might object to a comparison to the US.

The most obvious difference is that the US is nation of immigrants. With the exception of 'native' Americans, most Americans can say that their ancestors came from this or that European or African country at that or that time. That means new immigrants don't look that out of place in the US. In comparison, my own ancestors (minus some Danish ones) might have come to this area ~ 10 000 years ago. Most of the population in Europe have a connection to the countries they occupy through thousands of years. This creates a schism between new arrivals and ancient arrivals, unless there is assimilation.

Some other things:

- Europe is filling up - both literally and non-literally. Some places really are getting crowded, but there are also national parks (and more rural areas not legally recognised) that people want to preserve, necessary farmland, opposition to further urbanisation and areas that are simply inhospitable. I imagine things looked rather different in the US over a 100 years ago; both physically and in terms of attitudes.
- there is still a significant split in the US population between the original natives, the population of European origin and the population of African origin
- the cultures where the immigrants came from were typically not too different from the cultures that the current Americans themselves came from

That latter point seems especially relevant. I am not aware of Europeans not integrating properly in other European countries being a common problem (international criminals are a problem, but that's largely a separate topic - they take advantage of the open borders), despite there being significant migration internally in Europe.

As the picture shows some Americans felt the same about immigrants as many Europeans in this thread do today. It was believed that Southern and Eastern Europeans were incompatible with American culture and values and that the new wave of migrants threatened to destroy American society. We can look at the US today and see that the these immigrants were able to assimilate just fine but at the time Southern Europeans were seen to be as alien as Muslims are today.

I agree the two situations aren't exactly comparable, and as I said before I'm not trying to make an argument for unrestricted immigration, but the sentiments expressed by turn of the century Americans and modern Europeans are so similar I think they warrant consideration. Basically what I'm trying to say is Middle Eastern immigrants might not be as scary as we think they are.


Yes, take in mind that only very few are from minorities that are at actual risk, some are. But most 'refugees' are sunni-mislims who aren't hunted down by fellow sunni-muslims. We should help the Kurds, the christians, the muslims of a different persuation.

The Assad regime has been systematically murdering dissidents for years, and it bombs rebel held civilian areas to make them uninhabitable and force the residents to flee to regime held areas. Being a Sunni Muslim in Syria is no guarantee of safety. Not to mention the risk of getting caught in the crossfire that anyone living in a war zone faces.

[Fragony]

Sure enough, but it was that plumb eastblock farmhorse Merkel's blunder that spawned the horde of migrants, not going to call them refugees as most aren't. Migrants aren't exactly popular with the real refugees, what they ran away from is comming with them. Tensions are really high among them, and where they go. Rape and intimidation is rampant.

[Husar]

Sure enough, but it was that plumb eastblock farmhorse Merkel's blunder that spawned the horde of migrants

What blunder?

[Fragony]

What blunder?

Shelving the Dublin-treaty of course. That's what caused this unmanageble wave of migrants, not the civil-war. She realised her mistake by now and she leaves Romania and Croatia with the troubles. Even demands that other EU-members solve the problems, OR ELSE

[Husar]

Shelving the Dublin-treaty of course. That's what caused this unmanageble wave of migrants, not the civil-war. She realised her mistake by now and she leaves Romania and Croatia with the troubles. Even demands that other EU-members solve the problems, OR ELSE

That sounds like complete nonsense since she opened the border long after the border countries were already knee-deep in refugees and the huge numbers were already known. Thousands of people had already drowned by the time she did anything. What opened the floodgates was the lack of stable countries in the south and east of the Mediterranean. And at least in the south, it was caused by eh, Sarkozy and Cameron. Syria is the fault of Cheney, Sarkozy, Blair and Putin. You can't seriously believe that things Merkel says are the top news in Syria when the country is in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Some of them also come from the camps of course, mostly because they are not fond of spending the next 20 years of their lives in a tent without permission to get a job or find a proper home. It's easy to say refugees should accept that because at least they're safe now if you're not in their situation.

[Fragony]

That sounds like complete nonsense since she opened the border long after the border countries were already knee-deep in refugees and the huge numbers were already known. Thousands of people had already drowned by the time she did anything. What opened the floodgates was the lack of stable countries in the south and east of the Mediterranean. And at least in the south, it was caused by eh, Sarkozy and Cameron. Syria is the fault of Cheney, Sarkozy, Blair and Putin. You can't seriously believe that things Merkel says are the top news in Syria when the country is in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Some of them also come from the camps of course, mostly because they are not fond of spending the next 20 years of their lives in a tent without permission to get a job or find a proper home. It's easy to say refugees should accept that because at least they're safe now if you're not in their situation.

Shelterring one myself, don't lecture me, it's my own decision to do that. Merkel gave them a very big carrot, and it was heard, total rage on social-media, COME TO GERMANY!!! And they did. She is going to remembered for that, and not in the way she wanted.

[Viking]

What I see is that you would like them to be identified as non-refugees to avoid any obligations toward them. But isn't that a different question, what sort of obligations countries owe to refugees, and under what circumstances?

I suspect both elements might need some adjustment - what a refugee is, and how they should be treated.


Yeh, it's not like a lot of countries agree with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#/media/File:Refugeeconvention.PNG

:rolleyes:

I didn't sign it. As with any topic, we are free to debate definitions..


I agree the two situations aren't exactly comparable, and as I said before I'm not trying to make an argument for unrestricted immigration, but the sentiments expressed by turn of the century Americans and modern Europeans are so similar I think they warrant consideration. Basically what I'm trying to say is Middle Eastern immigrants might not be as scary as we think they are.

Well, the Italian Mafia managed to hitch a ride with the Italian immigrants, and violent Islamism is hitching a ride with Muslim immigrants, so I can see some immediate similarities there. :book2:

[Fragony]

Open debate, wouldnd't that be nice if there would be such a thing

Juncker: most peple don't uderstand what we decide, if there isn't any protest/riots we will do what we wanted to. (vvery loose translation)

Just few quotes from druncke- I mean Junkcer https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker

not scary at all, not stupid either

[Husar]

Shelterring one myself, don't lecture me, it's my own decision to do that. Merkel gave them a very big carrot, and it was heard, total rage on social-media, COME TO GERMANY!!! And they did. She is going to remembered for that, and not in the way she wanted.

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? Or are you saying that you harbor a refugee and that you can somehow tell them apart? If so, are you harboring a family or one guy and aren't the guys coming without family all work migrants according to you?


I suspect both elements might need some adjustment - what a refugee is, and how they should be treated.

I didn't sign it. As with any topic, we are free to debate definitions..

Would you care to give us your definition then or are you just against the current one?

[Fragony]

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? [

Yeah I am pretty'much actually doing what you don't, all opinion. Nobody who is in need needs an opinion

[Husar]

Yeah I am pretty'much actually doing what you don't, all opinion. Nobody who is in need needs an opinion

What's your point? That poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote?

[Fragony]

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? Or are you saying that you harbor a refugee and that you can somehow tell them apart? If so, are you harboring a family or one guy and aren't the guys coming without family all work migrants according to you

It's my personal choice, not an obligation. just helping someone. Nobody told me to do that.

[Husar]

It's my personal choice, not an obligation. just helping someone. Nobody told me to do that.

Yes, but you were apparently saying that because I am not rich enough to afford a boat to house a migrant, my opinion is not worth as much as yours. Either that or I have no idea what you were saying.

[Fragony]

Yes, but you were apparently saying that because I am not rich enough to afford a boat to house a migrant, my opinion is not worth as much as yours. Either that or I have no idea what you were saying.

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

[Husar]

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

[HopAlongBunny]

Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-09/why-germany-welcomes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

[Greyblades]

If germany has the jobs to support the refugees and the patience to assimilate them, then more power to them. Just don't come crying to us if you take in more than you can employ and end up swelling the homeless/ criminal population.

[Fragony]

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

[Viking]

Would you care to give us your definition then or are you just against the current one?

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.


Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-09/why-germany-welcomes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

[wooly_mammoth]

I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Edit: and hooray for me for the 137th post! :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

Leaving aside the personal slur at the end Frag is broadly correct here - first Germany unilaterally said it would take "all Syrians" and now it wants to force other countries to take them instead - but only 120,000 of the million or so we will have this year, when Husar says 40-50 are considered legitimate refugees by Germany.

I suspect in a few months, possibly weeks, Germany and France will be pushing for another 120,000 to be accepted, and then another, and another.

Meanwhile, any pretext of common ground or common governance has collapsed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34332759

EU hold summit a week too late - Slovakia launching legal challenge to being forced to take refugees.

[Husar]

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Isn't a refugee someone forced to seek refuge? And why is that definition silly? If you say it is silly, it would help if you explain why.


Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.

How would the informal version help with anything if the legal one stays the same?


Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

You forget that we can expand to New Berlin on Mars.
Population decline would help with a lot of issues though, such as pollution etc.
It's just that noone sees this and many have previously claimed that the planet could house a whole lot more humans.
It also seems counter-productive for any country by itself to reduce the population.


I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Are you in favor of a new EU law that forces people to move if they can't find work or are you suggesting we spark a civil war in Spain?

[wooly_mammoth]

Don't be ridiculous. It's just that I didn't hear the "feel free to come & work in Germany if you can't find a job since we need workers and population growth bonus" rhetoric being applied to EU citizens, that's why I was asking.

[Fragony]

Gets even worse, the ultra-undemocratic liberal alliance wants to deny member-states that don't bend over tne right to vote over EU matters. More and more is the EU becomming it's real form

[Husar]

Don't be ridiculous. It's just that I didn't hear the "feel free to come & work in Germany if you can't find a job since we need workers and population growth bonus" rhetoric being applied to EU citizens, that's why I was asking.

Maybe I read it as more sarcastic than it was meant to be, my apologies.
But there are already programs in Germany for young people, especially students, of other European countries who want to work in Germany. There are actually young people from Spain who did or do that, but I would assume not all actually want to leave their country, family, friends, learn a new language, etc. just to get a job.

[Fragony]

Immigrants/Guest workers from Southern Europe are a bargain, they are well educated, speak perfect English, and highly qualified. That's not true for the majority of the 'refugees' though. Even if they are highly educated, our standards are much higher.

[Viking]

Isn't a refugee someone forced to seek refuge? And why is that definition silly? If you say it is silly, it would help if you explain why.

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.


How would the informal version help with anything if the legal one stays the same?

The words media and ordinary people use can have an impact no matter what the legal definition is.


Population decline would help with a lot of issues though, such as pollution etc.
It's just that noone sees this and many have previously claimed that the planet could house a whole lot more humans.
It also seems counter-productive for any country by itself to reduce the population.

The goal is not population decline, but population stability (an average growth of 0 over x years, where x is not too large).

Yet it is natural that the population size oscillates before it settles to something more permanent. The first oscillations might have the largest amplitudes - e.g. once the growth decreases, it might decrease until it is highly negative before it shoots up again (more space might make parents feel like having more kids), but still significantly lower than what it was earlier, provided that the factors that started the first decrease in population are still in place.

[Montmorency]

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.


Not checking for EU countries or the UN, but for the US:


U.S. law allows certain people who cannot or do not want to return to their home country because of past persecution or the danger of future persecution to live in the United States as refugees or asylees. However, the source or danger of persecution sometimes disappears after a refugee or asylee has already been granted status but before he or she has obtained U.S. citizenship. The question then becomes whether the person will be allowed to continue living in the U.S. under these changed circumstances.
For example, if you obtained asylum on grounds of political opinion because your home country’s government persecuted you as a member of the opposition, and your party has now come to power, then you might wonder whether the U.S. government could terminate your asylum on account of this change in your country’s conditions.
The answer will depend in key part on whether you are a refugee, on the one hand, or an asylee, on the other.
The main distinction between these two is that ordinary refugees apply for their status from outside the United States and resettle in the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), while asylees are a special type of refugee who apply for their status directly from within the U.S. (or from a U.S. border). Because of this difference, asylees and ordinary refugees get treated differently under U.S. immigration law.
If you are a refugee, then you are unlikely to lose your status in the United States on the basis of improved conditions in your country, such as a new government, a newly signed peace treaty with a rebel group, or a new law protecting people who were being persecuted for the same reasons you were. However, loss of status is more of a possible concern if you are an asylee.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-refugee-asylee-lose-status-once-conditions-improve-home-country.html

But that's for the United States, and it is relatively difficult for Syrians to apply for asylum given the geographic barriers.

What indicates that no type of refugee in Europe can ever lose that status? At any rate, in most cases it shouldn't really be relevant anyway once the process of naturalization goes through. Remember that the plan has so far been for either settlement or deportation, not for locked-down camps as in the neighbors of Syria.

As for more general questions for the future and around the world, well - why is it an issue there either?

[Fragony]

What good are rules if someone just decides to change them? Germany does just that. How can we ever trust them again? Bankrupting Greece in a covert bailout of German and French banks, np toll. Screwing up badly, deal with it. Got to respect Germany for throwing Europe into chaos three times in just a century.

[Husar]

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.

What do you mean by more robust? The way you sound it seems like you want them to basically get locked up in the first "safe" country they cross into, regardless of how strenuous that is for the country or how they are/can be treated there, but that's only an assumption since you are very vague the entire time. I would argue that this is not a very fair or useful way to handle this. Assume a worst case where all countries around Lebanon break into civil war and according to you Lebanon then has to host something like 10 times its population in refugees. Maybe you don't care about the Lebanese as long as those people don't come to Norway or something?

[Fragony]

See it like this Hussie, if you would have to explain yourself to a deeply cynical and calculative person how far would you get beyond a moral appeal. (don't mean you Viking in case you think I do)

[Husar]

See it like this Hussie, if you would have to explain yourself to a deeply cynical and calculative person how far would you get beyond a moral appeal. (don't mean you Viking in case you think I do)

I would shoot them because in my very cold calculation that solves my problem of having to show them why being a cold calculative person is not something one should advocate to others as it can literally backfire. ~;)

[Montmorency]

No Husar, that's too naive.

You should have tried playing Mafia. Then you would know (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM).

[Husar]

No Husar, that's too naive.

You should have tried playing Mafia. Then you would know (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM).

I played lots of Mafia when you were still a young forum-whippersnapper. ~;) The idea is that the other guy wouldn't expect such a move from me.
Not sure how that relates to WIFOM.

[Fragony]

I would shoot them because in my very cold calculation that solves my problem of having to show them why being a cold calculative person is not something one should advocate to others as it can literally backfire. ~;)

Question stands, if you have to go beyond a moral appeal how reasonable can you get it given the rather disastrous policy of Merkel. Give me something to just dismiss, why should you get all the fun

[Gilrandir]

Got to respect Germany for throwing Europe into chaos three times in just a century.

I may be wrong, but I heard that about 15 years ago we entered kinda new century. Or has anything changed?:laugh4:

[Fragony]

I may be wrong, but I heard that about 15 years ago we entered kinda new century. Or has anything changed?:laugh4:

century just means 100 years, just as a millenium means 1000 years, so 1914-2015, about a century

[Viking]

At any rate, in most cases it shouldn't really be relevant anyway once the process of naturalization goes through.

Indeed, this is for the time before refuge/citizenship/similar has been granted.


What do you mean by more robust?

A definition that is less likely to give incorrect classifications relative to what is intended.


The way you sound it seems like you want them to basically get locked up in the first "safe" country they cross into, regardless of how strenuous that is for the country or how they are/can be treated there

That's a rather weird interpretation. A more immediate interpretation is that refugees that pass perfectly safe countries without seeing if they can stay there, are no longer counted as refugees (does not include obvious exceptions like travelling by air to countries they have been granted refuge in).


I would argue that this is not a very fair or useful way to handle this. Assume a worst case where all countries around Lebanon break into civil war and according to you Lebanon then has to host something like 10 times its population in refugees.

Refugees should first and foremost be settled in the nearest possible countries with populations that are similar culturally. If refugees don't have to learn a new language completely from scratch, that's a huge benefit. If refugees don't have a different religion (or follow a different branch of the same religion), they are less likely to stand out as a separate group from the rest of the population a few generations later - they might even have completely assimilated within, say, 10 generations.

This is best for everyone. The descendants of the refugees don't have to live in a country where they are stigmatised and discriminated against, and the majority population of the countries where these refugees did not settle do not have to worry about hostile individuals among the descendants of the original refugees, nor general friction between the two groups. When the refugees settle closer to their home country, it is also easier to move back home when it is safe, or, if they don't, visit relatives and friends who still/now live there.

Of course Lebanon shouldn't have to take all the refugees themselves, so look at the map for Arab and/or Muslim countries relatively close, and you'll find a very long list of countries that can take their share (both in Africa and Western and Central Asia).

[Montmorency]

Indeed, this is for the time before refuge/citizenship/similar has been granted.

But then, where is the issue of the "perpetual refugee"? Are you worried about people hiding under a rock for 20 years, emerging when their original country is in order, and technically counting as refugees by international standards? Even given that outlandish scenario, well, they might as well be since by that point they likely have no material connection remaining to their homeland.


Refugees should first and foremost be settled in the nearest possible countries with populations that are similar culturally. If refugees don't have to learn a new language completely from scratch, that's a huge benefit. If refugees don't have a different religion (or follow a different branch of the same religion), they are less likely to stand out as a separate group from the rest of the population a few generations later - they might even have completely assimilated within, say, 10 generations.

This is best for everyone. The descendants of the refugees don't have to live in a country where they are stigmatised and discriminated against, and the majority population of the countries where these refugees did not settle do not have to worry about hostile individuals among the descendants of the original refugees, nor general friction between the two groups. When the refugees settle closer to their home country, it is also easier to move back home when it is safe, or, if they don't, visit relatives and friends who still/now live there.

Of course Lebanon shouldn't have to take all the refugees themselves, so look at the map for Arab and/or Muslim countries relatively close, and you'll find a very long list of countries that can take their share (both in Africa and Western and Central Asia).

I can see the relationship to other aspects of your philosophy discussed in other contexts, but one of the big complaints remains that this is only viable and conducive to the benfits you describe under the prior condition of one-world government.

[AE Bravo]

Refugees should first and foremost be settled in the nearest possible countries with populations that are similar culturally. If refugees don't have to learn a new language completely from scratch, that's a huge benefit. If refugees don't have a different religion (or follow a different branch of the same religion), they are less likely to stand out as a separate group from the rest of the population a few generations later - they might even have completely assimilated within, say, 10 generations.

This is best for everyone. The descendants of the refugees don't have to live in a country where they are stigmatised and discriminated against,
The idea that refugee assimilation into culturally similar countries would be smooth sailing relative to traveling to alien countries is not true. Reality is that not only will they inevitably be discriminated against due to the overall social dynamics of the Arab world, they will not have a voice and the cultural disparity is not as minor as you make it out to be, in fact Arabs of the Levant have just as much similarities with the west than they do with fellow Arabs I'd argue. Admitting more Syrians in countries with questionable long-term sustainability is recipe for disaster, and cannot be dealt with by those countries unless you want to deal with MORE refugees in the future.

It's very difficult to acquire citizenship in Gulf countries and they all have a ceiling set for foreigners so as not to upset the native population. Because the satisfaction of natives are of utmost importance to the regimes (besides ksa/bahrain) any refugees will not be able to get the basic needs that can be afforded by governments elsewhere. They will, like the Iraqis before them, have to pay for their child's education since all public schools are for citizens only and won't have enough money due to the cost of living.

[Fragony]

And so Europe should take these people why?

If you freely admit that it would be difficult for surrounding countries to take the refugees, why should it fall on Europe?

good question ain't it

[AE Bravo]

I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

[Fragony]

You can handle it, we can't.

But we can't either, it are too many, on the plus side, it's also bankrupting that horrible IS

[AE Bravo]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

[Fragony]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

Don't have one

[Husar]

A definition that is less likely to give incorrect classifications relative to what is intended.

What is intended and who intends it? Has it occurred to you that the UN definition could be what most countries intend it to be?


That's a rather weird interpretation. A more immediate interpretation is that refugees that pass perfectly safe countries without seeing if they can stay there, are no longer counted as refugees (does not include obvious exceptions like travelling by air to countries they have been granted refuge in).

How is that different from what I said other than that you want to remove the element of forcing them to stay in the first safe country they pass? And if you don't force them to stay, what do you do with them when they move on? Accept them anyway but as migrants instead of asylum seekers? Or send them back to the first safe country they passed? (that would be the same as forcing them to stay there, only more expensive, no?) Or maybe send them back to the war-torn country they fled from? Your "solution" still seems incomplete and not entirely thought through or there is something you are not telling.


Refugees should first and foremost be settled in the nearest possible countries with populations that are similar culturally. If refugees don't have to learn a new language completely from scratch, that's a huge benefit. If refugees don't have a different religion (or follow a different branch of the same religion), they are less likely to stand out as a separate group from the rest of the population a few generations later - they might even have completely assimilated within, say, 10 generations.

And how do you settle them there? By force or by kindly asking them to turn around? Or do you trick them into signing a contract? How would you explain to a refugee that he is better of in country X or would you just say you are sure of it even if he can't see it?


This is best for everyone. The descendants of the refugees don't have to live in a country where they are stigmatised and discriminated against, and the majority population of the countries where these refugees did not settle do not have to worry about hostile individuals among the descendants of the original refugees, nor general friction between the two groups. When the refugees settle closer to their home country, it is also easier to move back home when it is safe, or, if they don't, visit relatives and friends who still/now live there.

So you're saying these refugees don't know what's best for them if they move to a country that is too different from their home country? And one of the reasons is that people are just too racist and intermixing just won't work. So let me change the theater for a minute and ask you what you propose the USA do with their black and native American populations? Send the blacks back to Africa and the native Americans back to...America? How to proceed with Israel, it's like a ghetto surrounded by native Arabs, no? Impossible to ever integrate.

It's also funky that you talk about stigmatization and discrimination as though they were inevitable. So the gay movement is doomed as well? Women could never possibly gain voting rights or equal pay because men will always be men?
That's a super-defeatist attitude, well, either that or someone is just too comfortable not having to change.
I fully expect someone to call me a meanie now.


Of course Lebanon shouldn't have to take all the refugees themselves, so look at the map for Arab and/or Muslim countries relatively close, and you'll find a very long list of countries that can take their share (both in Africa and Western and Central Asia).

Why should Central Asian countries take them? And why should reasonable people pack all their things and leave for a far worse life? Would you? When Europeans fled from oppressive regimes to America, there was no one in New York Harbor telling them to go back to some European country that was more likely to allow them to fit in and their ideas of getting a better life there were not criticized as greed. Why is America so much better than Europe?


But we can't either, it are too many, on the plus side, it's also bankrupting that horrible IS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

The video I linked said if we took all of them, the number of muslims in the EU would increase from 4% to 5%, is that really such a massive change?

[Fragony]

Yes that would be massive change as they won't be spread over entire countries but in the bigger cities that allready have problems. Number wizardy They don't want to go to entire Europe, they want to go to Northern Europe, Germany and Sweden mostly, iactualbmpact kinda changes with these numbers no. Eastern-European countries are not going to listen to the EU, good for them they are right, Southern-Europe has problems of it's own, so they simply can't. These statistics mean absolutily notning as they assume a spread over the whole of Europe and that ain't going to happen. UN-reports, 8000 a day.

[Viking]

But then, where is the issue of the "perpetual refugee"? Are you worried about people hiding under a rock for 20 years, emerging when their original country is in order, and technically counting as refugees by international standards? Even given that outlandish scenario, well, they might as well be since by that point they likely have no material connection remaining to their homeland.

Not hiding under a rock, but being extremely picky about where and how to stay while still being able to both claim and be entitled to refugee treatment.


I can see the relationship to other aspects of your philosophy discussed in other contexts, but one of the big complaints remains that this is only viable and conducive to the benfits you describe under the prior condition of one-world government.

All it takes is that one is able to delegate such tasks of taking in refugees. The problem is that European politicians for the most part aren't particularly interested in anything like this - either they want to play the humanitarian superhero, or they just shut their country's borders.

There are different ways to make countries accept their share of refugees - both with carrots and sticks. But there has to be a will to make these changes happen, and currently there is not.


The idea that refugee assimilation into culturally similar countries would be smooth sailing relative to traveling to alien countries is not true. Reality is that not only will they inevitably be discriminated against due to the overall social dynamics of the Arab world, they will not have a voice and the cultural disparity is not as minor as you make it out to be, in fact Arabs of the Levant have just as much similarities with the west than they do with fellow Arabs I'd argue. Admitting more Syrians in countries with questionable long-term sustainability is recipe for disaster, and cannot be dealt with by those countries unless you want to deal with MORE refugees in the future.

It's very difficult to acquire citizenship in Gulf countries and they all have a ceiling set for foreigners so as not to upset the native population. Because the satisfaction of natives are of utmost importance to the regimes (besides ksa/bahrain) any refugees will not be able to get the basic needs that can be afforded by governments elsewhere. They will, like the Iraqis before them, have to pay for their child's education since all public schools are for citizens only and won't have enough money due to the cost of living.

Now is a good time to change. Always is a good time to change. If there is a will, there is a way. The kind of argumentation you present quickly becomes circular.

A shake up of the system might not be so bad in the long run. It's worth noting how Algeria is still stable despite some unrest during the "Arab spring", war in neighbouring Libya, and the civil war in the 90s. I don't think Algeria has reached its final state, but they might be more wary of creating a new civil war and be more inclined to find more peaceful ways to settle differences.


What is intended and who intends it? Has it occurred to you that the UN definition could be what most countries intend it to be?

Anyone, really. Your second point relates to the definition itself, which can to some extent be considered as separate from what it is supposed to classify: sometimes, a less complex definition might be preferred even if it will misclassify more cases (and hence is less robust).


that would be the same as forcing them to stay there, only more expensive, no?

No. The world is bigger than Europe and Syria. They can go other places. If some European countries are willing to let them in, then I am not necessarily opposed to migrants passing through other countries to get there (as long as they actually only pass through) - which directly contradicts the idea of forcing them to stay somewhere.


And how do you settle them there? By force or by kindly asking them to turn around? Or do you trick them into signing a contract? How would you explain to a refugee that he is better of in country X or would you just say you are sure of it even if he can't see it?

Should be rather obvious: they have countries that will deport them, and countries that will accept them. Some of them might try to stay in the first category of countries anyway, hoping that they will be the special snowflakes. The rest will opt for the second category of countries, provided that this category isn't exclusively made up of unpleasant places.


So you're saying these refugees don't know what's best for them if they move to a country that is too different from their home country?

Per above, there is not that much of a choice for the moment. They typically choose the countries that they hope will accept them and that they have heard positive things about.


And one of the reasons is that people are just too racist and intermixing just won't work. So let me change the theater for a minute and ask you what you propose the USA do with their black and native American populations? Send the blacks back to Africa and the native Americans back to...America? How to proceed with Israel, it's like a ghetto surrounded by native Arabs, no? Impossible to ever integrate.

Y'know, if I thought it was OK to evict people from their home country, there would be no problem accepting refugees - I'd just evict them too once the danger in their home country is gone. I "believe in the sanctity of citizenship". I also believe in states and regions cleaning up their own mess, not dumping it onto others; like the Middle East has had habit of doing recently.


It's also funky that you talk about stigmatization and discrimination as though they were inevitable. So the gay movement is doomed as well? Women could never possibly gain voting rights or equal pay because men will always be men?

It's funny you should ask. As long as people who count themselves as men, women, gays etc. see these their category as a fundamental social and/or cultural identity, then there is likely to be hostility between the groups. I claim that the degree of hostility is closely linked to how strong these identities are.

If the goal is zero hostility, then yes, by my logic, such movements are doomed. Other aims, on the other hand, require different assessments. Legal changes are probably the easiest goals to reach - it's just writing things on paper and asking the judicial and law-enforcing systems to keep an eye on the matter.


[...] either that or someone is just too comfortable not having to change.

Change? Change what? Before a new minority population has arrived, there is no one to discriminate against. Once the population is there, they could go on about their usual business and continue their old habits of not discriminating against this population (previously impossible to do), or opt for a change and start discriminating. Since many people start discriminating, they evidently love change.


Why should Central Asian countries take them?

If there are any reasons anyone at all should take them, then these apply to Central Asia as well.


And why should reasonable people pack all their things and leave for a far worse life? Would you?

A variant of the rhetorical question that is often asked: "what would you do if you were a refugee?" Step one would be to avoid becoming one in the first place. That's what I am doing right now: protecting my home country from internal strife. At the same time I am supportive of my home country's membership of the world's most power military alliance as protection against external hostility. I am hard at work as a would-be refugee already, you see.


When Europeans fled from oppressive regimes to America, there was no one in New York Harbor telling them to go back to some European country that was more likely to allow them to fit in and their ideas of getting a better life there were not criticized as greed.

Which European countries would allow them to 'fit in' better? The US was founded by European immigrants; you can just as well consider it an extension of Europe from a cultural point of view.

[Fragony]

aww, the arab spring. Maybe I was right that was ogoing to be an islamist winter way before you guys realised it, Just saying, not patting

[Viking]

It's not strange at all that islamists benefited from the uprisings. The old dictatorships were all secular, which gave credibility to the islamists as a better, untainted alternative. Conversely, in Iran, the islamists had been in power for decades, and more secular candidates were seen as less tainted and the better alternative.

The protests against president Morsi illustrates this to some extent also, as many people had lost faith in the islamists already; not needing decades.

Similar mechanisms can be seen in Europe, too. With France's revolution, religious institutions had up to that point been powerful; so in response, revolutionaries were wary of them and typically very secular.

[AE Bravo]

Now is a good time to change. Always is a good time to change. If there is a will, there is a way. The kind of argumentation you present quickly becomes circular.

A shake up of the system might not be so bad in the long run. It's worth noting how Algeria is still stable despite some unrest during the "Arab spring", war in neighbouring Libya, and the civil war in the 90s. I don't think Algeria has reached its final state, but they might be more wary of creating a new civil war and be more inclined to find more peaceful ways to settle differences.
Circular? I am trying to find what your argument is, it seems overly optimistic or shows a lack of understanding of the current situation surrounding these countries that spawned this problem. Having your way at the risk of state disintegration doesn't sound very good to me and, all due respect, I don't care what you think is right if it completely discards the survival of the current strategic center of the Arab world. Preventing more conflicts and refugee crises rests on the stability of the remaining wealthy or recovering states.

Which Arab country exactly could possibly afford a "shakeup of the system?" What happens when you shake up a sheikhdom? Algeria is a different case entirely. It has a radically distinguished political system compared to countries in the Arabian peninsula. These countries you want to throw the refugees at cannot afford to have the refugees, they won't be able to handle the economic consequences especially now that Iran is working towards controlling the regional oil market.

I also believe in states and regions cleaning up their own mess, not dumping it onto others; like the Middle East has had habit of doing recently.
They cannot clean up their own mess entirely. What they did do is donate more money than the whole west combined and a country as small as the UAE accepted 160,000 Syrians the past two years, that's around 159,000 more than the US. You cannot possibly intervene in regional politics and participate in the most disastrous regime change operations without expecting to carry some of the load.

[Viking]

Circular? I am trying to find what your argument is, it seems overly optimistic or shows a lack of understanding of the current situation surrounding these countries that spawned this problem. Having your way at the risk of state disintegration doesn't sound very good to me and, all due respect, I don't care what you think is right if it completely discards the survival of the current strategic center of the Arab world. Preventing more conflicts and refugee crises rests on the stability of the remaining wealthy or recovering states.

Which Arab country exactly could possibly afford a "shakeup of the system?" What happens when you shake up a sheikhdom? Algeria is a different case entirely. It has a radically distinguished political system compared to countries in the Arabian peninsula. These countries you want to throw the refugees at cannot afford to have the refugees, they won't be able to handle the economic consequences especially now that Iran is working towards controlling the regional oil market.

You are thinking short term. Turmoil will weaken the Arab world in the short term, but it can strengthen it in the long term. The Arab world is currently weak, anyway. Fancy skyscrapers are no measure of power; they can just as well be the fancy book cover with gold and rubies for a book with blank pages. What is there to protect, really? Dictator monarchs and wealthy sheikhs?

And when can we expect to be able to treat these 'recovering states' like adults and that they take their share of the burden in terms of refugee resettlement? 10 years? 25 years? 100 years? Never?

Note that I believe wealthy countries should help the countries taking in many refugees monetarily, and potentially with personnel on the ground. I also did not solely demand the gulf states to take in refugees, but also countries like e.g. Morocco, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan - yeah, throw in Turkmenistan too, for good measure. The choices are many.

No, I have no intention of destroying "the current strategic center of the Arab world", but I have an even smaller intention of destroying the cities of my home country that I actually live and spend time in.


You cannot possibly intervene in regional politics and participate in the most disastrous regime change operations without expecting to carry some of the load.

Accidentally helping burglars emptying a house might make one an idiot, but hardly morally responsible for the theft. It's not U.S. soldiers that are blowing up markets and setting off bombs at other public places.

[AE Bravo]

Turmoil will weaken the Arab world in the short term, but it can strengthen it in the long term.
Arab countries that hit the jackpot should stay away from turmoil if anything. 50 years of political reform among the progressive regimes hasn't led to anything, so no reason to pursue dangerous endeavors like this one. As if Palestinian and Iraqi refugees aren't enough for these countries?

Fancy skyscrapers are no measure of power; they can just as well be the fancy book cover with gold and rubies for a book with blank pages.
Solid economic hubs immune to terrorist attacks and serve the interests of the entire region. I think this is the right track, and is certainly a measure of power.

What is there to protect, really? Dictator monarchs and wealthy sheikhs?
Wealthy sheikhs and investors keeping it all afloat yes. But more importantly the people and their source of well-being after the oil. Spend while you can.

No, I have no intention of destroying "the current strategic center of the Arab world", but I have an even smaller intention of destroying the cities of my home country that I actually live and spend time in.
It can destroy cities but not your cities.

Accidentally helping burglars emptying a house might make one an idiot, but hardly morally responsible for the theft. It's not U.S. soldiers that are blowing up markets and setting off bombs at other public places.
It was all NATO in Libya. An incompetent operation that completely destroyed the most oil-rich state, the one that was a threat to Iran and could have accepted more refugees if more stable.

Some of these states aren't even adults. You are the adults since you've been around longer than 60 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would shoot them because in my very cold calculation that solves my problem of having to show them why being a cold calculative person is not something one should advocate to others as it can literally backfire. ~;)


The idea that refugee assimilation into culturally similar countries would be smooth sailing relative to traveling to alien countries is not true. Reality is that not only will they inevitably be discriminated against due to the overall social dynamics of the Arab world, they will not have a voice and the cultural disparity is not as minor as you make it out to be, in fact Arabs of the Levant have just as much similarities with the west than they do with fellow Arabs I'd argue. Admitting more Syrians in countries with questionable long-term sustainability is recipe for disaster, and cannot be dealt with by those countries unless you want to deal with MORE refugees in the future.

It's very difficult to acquire citizenship in Gulf countries and they all have a ceiling set for foreigners so as not to upset the native population. Because the satisfaction of natives are of utmost importance to the regimes (besides ksa/bahrain) any refugees will not be able to get the basic needs that can be afforded by governments elsewhere. They will, like the Iraqis before them, have to pay for their child's education since all public schools are for citizens only and won't have enough money due to the cost of living.

I agree, Gulf countries suck, and it's nice to see you admitting that the peoples of the Levant aren't really all that much like Arabs - funny how that wasn't true a couple of weeks ago.

Let's break this down though - the essence of what you're saying is that Europe is stable, democratically run and law abiding. That's true but it's dependent on a certain level of homogeneity, and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest. Both the UK and Spain were subject to sustained terror campaigns by segments of their "own" population up until very recently. In point of fact, Northern Ireland currently has no effective government and we're in danger of Westminster (England) having to take direct control, which will kick off more terror attacks.

8,000 people entered Hungary yesterday, Europe simply cannot support this rate of immigration - especially illegal immigration - and the likelyhood that our civil society will buckle at least at the local level and these people will be little better off in the end than if they had stayed in Turkey - except lots of them will have drowned/been trampled/died of heatstroke/frostbite.


I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

"We" Arabs or "We" Americans?

You're in Denver.

Speaking of which - the US has the space as well as the mass lift capacity, the money, and the experience of assimilating new immigrants.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Incidentally, for those wondering, 8,000 people passing into Hungary (and ultimately on to Germany) means 2,920,000 a year, or something like twenty-five times the 120,000 Germany and France want to forcibly distribute, even if we assume that the numbers are peaking we could still see a million new arrivals from these few countries in a year.

Something to think about.

[AE Bravo]

I agree, Gulf countries suck, and it's nice to see you admitting that the peoples of the Levant aren't really all that much like Arabs - funny how that wasn't true a couple of weeks ago.
No need for that, they aren't that bad actually. I guess it's like what they say about how people start seeing the guy who won the lottery. I've never met a Brit that doesn't like the Gulf. Not to mention what London is now was straight up built by our lowly countries.

Totally different topic. You were quick to run out of that one with doublespeak. I already proved to you they are the same.

I appreciate the breakdown, but this is comparable to the middle east how? True, it's dangerous to "civil society at the local level" but I'm talking about state survival not manageable civil disturbances. Civil society is weak and restrained in the GCC, which makes it prone to the only civil society that can possibly be justified in such an environment - some form of political Islam. Some people would just be more enthusiastic and comfortable starting up a political Islamic program in another Arab country than they would in an alien country, it is more of a danger in the middle east than it is in Europe obviously.

"We" Arabs or "We" Americans?

You're in Denver.
I grew up/go to school here, but I am from the UAE and spent most of my life there. It's my home and I know it has problems.

I will say that one thing I've noticed is that Europeans in general, again in general (and the ones I've met) all have disdain for Arabs for some reason. It shows, even with you. Oh well, I'm livin

Speaking of which - the US has the space as well as the mass lift capacity, the money, and the experience of assimilating new immigrants.
Agreed. They are far more welcoming than Europe, not a hint of widespread condescension. :bow:
The US has really done enough imo.

[Husar]

Incidentally, for those wondering, 8,000 people passing into Hungary (and ultimately on to Germany) means 2,920,000 a year, or something like twenty-five times the 120,000 Germany and France want to forcibly distribute, even if we assume that the numbers are peaking we could still see a million new arrivals from these few countries in a year.

Something to think about.

Incredible wealth creation for property owners, and this time it won't be a bubble?

[Fragony]

Incredible wealth creation for property owners, and this time it won't be a bubble?

Most will never be interesting for German companies, and thus will never be able to buy a house, only a fraction is a well-educated refugee, only a third actually from Syria. Turkissh mafia found a goldmine: fake pasports. You have no idea who's who. Talk about a bubble. A lot of Germans also kinda had it and tensions are growing, I am kinda curious about how crime against immigrants are respectivily to prior to this influx, seems more common but I don't know that for sure

[Gilrandir]

If there is a will, there is a way.



Wrong!! Where there is a whip, there is a will.




I also did not solely demand the gulf states to take in refugees, but also countries like e.g. Morocco, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan - yeah, throw in Turkmenistan too, for good measure.


The latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.



and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest.



Historically, it is the other way around: those countries integrated different ethnic groups thus inheriting the ethnic tensions that existed before.

[AE Bravo]

Don't know about sending them anywhere, but now that they're there...

The Indian slaves thing is a bit outdated. What's rich is attacking a puny country to put yourselves on a pedestal. The homeless here, black people and their living conditions. Police brutality, prison-industrial complex. This is the cavity I think you should focus on.

What's your beef? Maybe we should send them to the south and see how rich that reaction would be.

[Montmorency]

My beef is I should give a damn when these able bodied males abandoned their homes and families to strike it rich in the welfare state.

Again, say what you want about the risks inherent to a European project (or, as it were, woodpile) of managing millions of refugees - but citing the above specifically for looking down on the refugees or for arguing against granting their asylum is just silly.

[AE Bravo]

So Europe should just take it because they migrants decided where they wanted to go. You set someones lawn on fire and tell them to deal with it?
Those countries along with the Saudis wanted Assad down and expected the kingdom to be some charitable foundation when shit hits the fan. The kingdom is a dirty country, just turn your back on it already.

America is so bad you came to school here. America is so bad it takes in more immigrants than anyone. America is so bad other countries have lotteries for visas. The UAE uses slave labor to make the elite rich. America is not perfect but it's miles better than that petro cartel masquerading as a nationstate.
Not bad at all, I'm livin. But the UAE, even though it's a small country, is rated #1 in the world for social cohesion. One of the highest standards of living and an overall happy place to be despite your quick google search fishing for human rights abuses.

I know you're from the south. I'm talking about survival of Arab countries and you're afraid of people striking it rich and doing better than you are. I lost count of Arab billionaires in Europe, Egyptians seem to be the wealthiest. You just haaaate these sand goons' hustle don't you even though you don't have a dog in the fight?

[AE Bravo]

Because they are using slave labor, living high on the petro dollar, and not letting in immigrants and migrants. Social cohesion is great when you talk about the 15% of your country that is actually counted in those statistics.
They do let in immigrants and migrants actually. I mentioned earlier they've accepted more Syrians than the US has since the war started.

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.
Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations. This is just reality. It's a 40 year old country I'm from.

Typical. I don't see how this is relevant beyond whatever fantasy is in your head.
Typical of what

[Montmorency]

Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations.

How about direct transfers to the EU, UN, or European national governments?

[AE Bravo]

Saudi Arabia is the one that should be held accountable for that. They can do it and they are responsible for the entire mess this region is at now. Aren't they the speakers at the human rights panel this year? Nice to see the generous reception from UN for our lovely kingdom.

To answer your question, yes for sure. Who is pushing for this right now from the EU, UN, or national governments? Those guys in their bishts over there won't feel compelled to do anything but business as usual unless they feel they have to.

[Viking]

I think this is the right track

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?


It can destroy cities but not your cities.

It has apparently already gone a good way towards destroying the Swedish city of Malmö:

In a port city, grenade attacks shatter Swedish sense of safety (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/09/uk-sweden-grenades-idUKKCN0QE09F20150809) (August 2015)


After years in the military and police dealing with bombs and mines in ex-Yugoslavia, Lebanon and Iraq, Goran Mansson is now back home advising Swedes what to do if they find an unexploded grenade on their street or in a playground.

As bomb squad chief in the western port city of Malmo, Mansson has been busy with a dozen grenade attacks in the last few months. They have shocked a Nordic country that prides itself on safety, led to worries criminality is out of control and given political fodder to a resurgent far-right that blames immigrant gangs for the violence.

[...]

These incidents have focussed attention on gang-related violence in one of Sweden’s most segregated cities where unemployment rates top 40 percent in some deprived, mainly immigrant areas.

Malmö school 'too dangerous' for students (http://www.thelocal.se/20150301/malm-school-too-dangerous-for-students) (March 2015)


A secondary school in Malmö has been closed after the teachers' union declared that it is too dangerous a place for students and teachers to attend due to widespread violence and criminality.

Violence, threats and visits from adult criminals eventually became too much for the teachers' unions at Varner Rydén School in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, whose safety officers have now closed the premises.

"Violence, threats and verbal abuse. There has also been trouble with students from other schools," said Hans Nilsson at the City of Malmö to news agency TT.

Sounds good.


It was all NATO in Libya. An incompetent operation that completely destroyed the most oil-rich state [...]

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.


and could have accepted more refugees if more stable.

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees.


Some of these states aren't even adults. You are the adults since you've been around longer than 60 years.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.


The latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.


a country as small as the UAE accepted 160,000 Syrians the past two years

Did they, really?


While it's true that the Gulf States have allowed thousands of Syrians to come on work visas, many Syrians say they face severe restrictions in these countries. Some have decided they would rather risk the difficult road to Europe.

"I will live here for five years, ten years, and then what?" says Dahlia, a Syrian who fled her home in Aleppo and joined relatives in the Gulf city-state of Dubai. "You never belong, you never feel you are safe, your residency can be canceled at any time and then what? Go where?"

Citizenship is not an option, even for workers who stay for decades.


The fact is that Gulf countries don't accept refugees for resettlement because none of their governments officially recognize the legal concept. Even in Jordan, Syrians fleeing the civil war are called "guests," the expectation being that they won't stay.

Arab governments refused to sign the 1951 international convention on refugee rights, says Nadim Shehadi, head of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. "The convention gives a mandate to UNHCR to do permanent settlement in the host countries or resettlement in third-party states," says Shehadi.

This was unacceptable to Arab governments 60 years ago — and still is today. They oppose resettling Palestinians in other countries, arguing that they should be allowed to return to homes they fled or were forced out of in wars with Israel.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/20/441457924/gulf-states-fend-off-criticism-about-doing-little-for-syrian-refugees

[Husar]

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/08/germany-migrant-crisis/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/daimler-s-zetsche-channels-silicon-valley-integrating-migrants


Daimler AG Chief Executive Officer Dieter Zetsche, striking an unusually political tone on the eve of this year’s Frankfurt International Motor Show, said that absorbing as many as 1 million migrants this year, while a “Herculean task,” holds the promise of laying the foundation for another economic upswing similar to the country’s postwar boom in the 1950s and 1960s.

His message: while not every person arriving in Germany is a brilliant engineer, mechanic or entrepreneur, many of those displaced by war, persecution and poverty are highly skilled and motivated, and may be just what the economy needs as the population shrinks and the number of people entering retirement age surges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/business/international/migrants-refugees-jobs-germany.html?_r=0


After learning German quickly and proving to be a skilled employee, Mr. Jasor is on track for a permanent job once he completes his apprenticeship in making machine and auto parts. More than any other European country now contending with an influx of migrants and refugees, Germany — with Europe’s biggest economy, an aging population and more than a half-million unfilled jobs — sees the migration wave as not only a challenge but an opportunity.

Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.

[Montmorency]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

No.


There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

[Viking]

No.

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.


But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

What difference?


Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.

Then snag all the migrants for yourself and don't ask others to take them.

[Montmorency]

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia: :laugh4:


What difference?

No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

[AE Bravo]

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?
Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

Very unfortunate whats happening in sweden.

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.
NATO helped Islamists remove the Qaddafi state and left it to the islamists. Libyans in the cities were fine. It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country. Who are they to arm people against a dictator? What business is it of theirs? Is Saudi Arabian lobbying for such things that much of a priority to the west? Or is Qaddafi’s middle finger to the US dollar worth the disintegration of an entire nation?

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees
Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.
A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

Did they, really?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/9/eu-juncker-says-states-must-take-160000-refugees.html

[Viking]

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia: :laugh4:

Funny that you gave Georgia the laugh. According to this (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48d2e6.html), Georgia has 262 704 internally displaced people. Despite this and despite the (related) breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia has a functioning democracy; and is certainly in no state of disintegration. So there is empirical evidence that Georgia meets the bar I set for these countries.


No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.


Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

You present these countries as fragile, and their economy relies heavily on state-owned oil production. Once that oil runs out, they should become even more fragile, regardless of economic diversification (oil comes relatively effort-free). So when will they become robust states, and how?


and left it to the islamists

Nope, that was a much later development. Unless you would call the NTC for islamists; a group that stepped down peacefully (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-19183300) after the first elections, anyway.


It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country.

The only arming of Libyans that I am aware of, was in the Nafusa mountains by the French (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-sent-arms-to-libyan-rebels/2011/06/29/AGcBxkqH_story.html); and does not seem to be a huge amount. The war did not start there, anyway.


Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.


A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

A miracle that anyone there sleeps well during the night given how precarious the situation there apparently is.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/9/eu-juncker-says-states-must-take-160000-refugees.html

I don't see anything there contradicting what I wrote, namely that they don't get permanent residence.

[Fragony]

What was bound to happen, not yet but will, renters go first. Germany can't handle Merkel's open invitation, so confiscation of private property is considered an option. http://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article146934742/Beschlagnahmungen-privaten-Wohnraums-moeglich.html

Other member states are not going to salute the next Messias, it's on you dear neighbours, and your lovely madchen, kinda getting out of hand for them allready ain't it

lol nice, ALL christian refugees in German refugee-centres are being bullied by muslim 'refugees', a solid 100%.. Don't ask for a link they never work.

[Gilrandir]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.




Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.



Poland is not ex-Soviet. Ex-Communist - perhaps. But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.



Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.


Although your and my suppositions will stay what they are - i.e. suppositions - I don't agree. Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

[Fragony]

Hear Hear Pat Condell http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/09/invasie_van_europa_pat_condell.html#comments

only movie topside counts

[Montmorency]

no state of disintegration.

That's a rather low bar, isn't it?


Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.


Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

IS succeeded in Syria because they had a Baathist Iraqi command mixed with peninsular Al-Qaeda types, recruited foreigners from outside the Fertile Crescent area, and infiltrated communities which they understood on a personal level. They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

[Husar]

We all knew it would come some day and here it is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4

[Fragony]

Redicule is normal, you will find out soon enough what you brought in. German girls are already adviced to not dress to exposed near asylum centres because they could be raped, in asylum centres women are already raped all the time by highly educated 20/30 year old men. Mock all you want, you are going to learn the hard way anyway

Could be worse though, just learned that the Dutch government acknowledges marriages with childs if the country they come from do. Syria doesn't do that. Dhimmitude to the max. I feel sorry for the real refugees, the nightmare they fled from is welcomed with open arms.

[AE Bravo]

You present these countries as fragile, and their economy relies heavily on state-owned oil production. Once that oil runs out, they should become even more fragile, regardless of economic diversification (oil comes relatively effort-free). So when will they become robust states, and how?


 Investments in physical infrastructure, and strengthening of the legal and regulatory environment to reduce the cost of doing business (including through free trade zones)

Dubai has built a modern infrastructure and instituted a business-friendly environment and regulations to promote the city as a trade and finance hub in the region. It launched projects in aluminum (DUBAL, now part of Emirates Global Aluminum), transportation (Emirates Airlines and two large airports), trade (Jebel Ali Port), finance (Dubai International Financial Center), and tourism (more than 500 hotels). During 2000–13 real GDP grew on average by about 9 percent per year, compared with a GCC average of 5.6 percent.

business-friendly environment, light regulations, modern infrastructure, and efficiency in project implementation showcase Dubai as a model for the region
There are also a lot of inter-state projects that will aim to further unify the GCC as an economic force.

Nope, that was a much later development. Unless you would call the NTC for islamists; a group that stepped down peacefully after the first elections, anyway.

The only arming of Libyans that I am aware of, was in the Nafusa mountains by the French; and does not seem to be a huge amount. The war did not start there, anyway.
All a sham the damage was already done and Libya was shattered. All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved. Turkey had a lot to do with it and the weapons fell into Islamist hands anyway with or without foreign training of these militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

They were Islamists right from the get-go and have been infesting eastern Libya for years with pent-up aggression for the regime. LIFG and AQIM affiliates/admirers saw the spring as an opportunity to hijack everything mid-revolution rather than Egypt’s post-revolution hijacking. These are armed Islamists that were trained by Turkey and funded by pretty much everyone including ksa and qatar. Everyone turned against Ghaddafi in support of Islamist militias that were entrusted with regime change.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.
This is not Syria, Qaddafi kept those rats in check. They couldn’t utter so much as a word back then until they got the sympathy of foreign countries who hated him. Total failure on all accounts it doesn’t matter what Libyans themselves did after the revolution, violent holes festering for decades were armed and ready. Ghaddafi could have cracked down on these movements if not for nato advocating total regime change, as if anything can possibly be guaranteed in a movement filled with affiliates of known transnational jihadi movements.

Actually, ISIS is already in multiple fronts including yemen, sinai, tunisia, algeria, and libya.

It's like in Iraq, where people thought replacing a secular nationwide vibe in support of sectarianism was a good idea.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No need for that, they aren't that bad actually. I guess it's like what they say about how people start seeing the guy who won the lottery. I've never met a Brit that doesn't like the Gulf. Not to mention what London is now was straight up built by our lowly countries.

The entire Gulf looks like Satan's naval to me - no democracy, no freedom (religious or political), wealth inequality that make Europe look like Marx's dream, horrific oppression of women, criminalisation of the poor, non Muslims literally being worth 1/3 of a Muslim...

I realise that not all of that is true of every Gulf State but it still looks like hell from where I'm sitting.


Totally different topic. You were quick to run out of that one with doublespeak. I already proved to you they are the same.

I gave up when your definition of "Arab" became so wide it encompassed the Jewish Diaspora whether you realised it or not.


I appreciate the breakdown, but this is comparable to the middle east how? True, it's dangerous to "civil society at the local level" but I'm talking about state survival not manageable civil disturbances. Civil society is weak and restrained in the GCC, which makes it prone to the only civil society that can possibly be justified in such an environment - some form of political Islam. Some people would just be more enthusiastic and comfortable starting up a political Islamic program in another Arab country than they would in an alien country, it is more of a danger in the middle east than it is in Europe obviously.

I, for one, have no desire to see Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" become a reality but if the current situation is not managed effectively it becomes a genuine possibility, much more so than with the Afro-Caribbeans in the '60's.


I grew up/go to school here, but I am from the UAE and spent most of my life there. It's my home and I know it has problems.

And for this reason Europe should take in millions of immigrants? The Arab world is currently exporting its problems to Europe - why should we let it happen?


I will say that one thing I've noticed is that Europeans in general, again in general (and the ones I've met) all have disdain for Arabs for some reason. It shows, even with you. Oh well, I'm livin

An Englishman can't trust someone who doesn't drink - or someone who drinks and lies about it. All of the most disgusting people I have met, physically and morally, have been Arabs. Added to that you have political Islam and the mess that Arabs have made of the Middle East and the Levant through bad politics and miss-management.

It's not that I dislike Arabs generally, I don't have a huge personal experience by any means, it's that the vast majority of things I despise seem to be popular within Arab culture, or at least a section of it.


Agreed. They are far more welcoming than Europe, not a hint of widespread condescension. :bow:
The US has really done enough imo.

Pleople went to the US because Europe had no room, Europe has even less room but there's still some in the US. If it behoves Europe to take these people from the ME it behoves the US to take them from Europe.

[AE Bravo]

no democracy, no freedom (religious or political), wealth inequality that make Europe look like Marx's dream, horrific oppression of women, criminalisation of the poor, non Muslims literally being worth 1/3 of a Muslim…
no democracy - the general consensus does not support democracy, not yet. our education is low but it’s getting better through spending.

no freedom - you have to be behind the regime yes, most are on the same page

wealth inequality - yeah this is huge for KSA and bahrain in particular, the rest of the countries compensated by setting really high wages and benefits for nationals. i get paid to go to school. everyone is also rich, and this is what really matters in the end as crazy as it sounds. you would understand if you grew up in this region. I think these nations need someone calling the shots just like Iraq needed someone like Saddam.

oppression of women - i honestly don’t see that besides in wahhabi nations, which are only two right now.

non-muslims being… - that’s true unfortunately. post-ww1 super-state super-people ideas that make us deplorable. this is very strong in the gulf but not to the extent of hating white people.


I realise that not all of that is true of every Gulf State but it still looks like hell from where I'm sitting.
if you ever do decide to visit the only ones worth considering are UAE and oman. i’d say these two also have the nicest people (towards foreigners and muslims alike) in the middle east. Morocco for culture trip.

I gave up when your definition of "Arab" became so wide it encompassed the Jewish Diaspora whether you realised it or not.
Hyperbole. I tried to tell you it’s not propaganda but a widely accepted historical view according to the academic sources I linked to.

And for this reason Europe should take in millions of immigrants? The Arab world is currently exporting its problems to Europe - why should we let it happen?
You’re pretending that this is all a result of Arab incompetence when it is the west cooperating with that incompetence that led to this. You have chips in the middle east and all of a sudden you want your money back.

Personally i have no problem with granting a selection of Syrians citizenship. I’m no ultranationalist unlike most gulf so i think we need these people because we are generally naive people, we need them. The regime sees this as a threat to them long-term so it's not happening. The ethnic tension that it would produce would be huge and would disrupt the current flow of wealth nationals enjoy. Add that to the fact that nobody in the west is really making an effort of making these so-called powerless countries take responsibility for it. Sorry but this is what makes your argument a fantasy afaic.

You also forget that many Syrians have pride and will not even want to be equal to us camel herders. There is racism ingrained in these societies. Syrians are uppity stingy conniving con artists and gulf people are dumb diaper head robe-wearing cultureless slaves. It's not THAT serious but it will be once you give out passports.

An Englishman can't trust someone who doesn't drink - or someone who drinks and lies about it. All of the most disgusting people I have met, physically and morally, have been Arabs. Added to that you have political Islam and the mess that Arabs have made of the Middle East and the Levant through bad politics and miss-management.
I drink. I know a lot of people that do and lot that don’t big deal. Politicized ideas is no reason to carry a grudge towards an entire people.

I also don't lie about it unless I'm at my grandma's house or some shit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

no democracy - the general consensus does not support democracy, not yet. our education is low but it’s getting better through spending.

"Not yet" is relative - you may wish to look at Arab discourse at the turn of the last Century whilst still under Ottoman rule. You are of course correct that the lack of democracy is partly because they general populace not enamoured of it, and don't appear to understand the concept. Libya was a good example of this, there were real democrats in the country but many militias, particularly those out of Misrata, were calling for power based on the number of fighters they had, or had lost in the fighting.

Now, perhaps you can see why I don't want people like that in my country, because my country is weak in many ways. Civil society in the UK and much of Europe is already fractured, we're just about holding it together here but if you look at our history over the last fifty years we're in danger of entering systemic decline.

Like I said - fall of Rome - it only takes a generation.


no freedom - you have to be behind the regime yes, most are on the same page

To this I should have added "acceptance of maintaining or changing the regime through violence". We put a huge amount of effort into stopping suicide attacks here but we know that many of our current second generation immigrants want to kill us - that's why Europe is a major recruiting ground of ISIS.


wealth inequality - yeah this is huge for KSA and bahrain in particular, the rest of the countries compensated by setting really high wages and benefits for nationals. i get paid to go to school. everyone is also rich, and this is what really matters in the end as crazy as it sounds. you would understand if you grew up in this region. I think these nations need someone calling the shots just like Iraq needed someone like Saddam.

Much of the welfare in gulf states is subsidised by oil and it's not an arrangements Europe cares to mimic, or has the means to. We guarantee enough to keep body and soul together, not to live well. One of the most distasteful things about these immigrants is their clear sense of entitlement, their lack of gratitude for safe harbour and insistence that we let them reach Sweden or Germany, or even the UK.


oppression of women - i honestly don’t see that besides in wahhabi nations, which are only two right now.

Matter of perspective - I assume in most Gulf states that if a woman wears a knee-length skirt and has her their unbround there'll be mutter of "deserved it" if she's raped.

One thing I've come across talking to Turks, Arabs, and Africans is that a woman's hnour is protected by the men in her family, rather than by society in general. So a woman needs an escort in certain situations even in public lest she be assumed to be "fair game".

This is an idea we abandoned a century ago.


non-muslims being… - that’s true unfortunately. post-ww1 super-state super-people ideas that make us deplorable. this is very strong in the gulf but not to the extent of hating white people.

As I recall the Koran, or the Hadith, specifies that a Christian man's word is worth 1/3 of that of a Muslim man's in court - a woman's word is worth nothing - I believe this is actually a fact of law in states other than Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is obvious as soon as a Christian man tries to bring a prosecution against a Muslim for raping his daughter.


if you ever do decide to visit the only ones worth considering are UAE and oman. i’d say these two also have the nicest people (towards foreigners and muslims alike) in the middle east. Morocco for culture trip.

I doubt I'll ever make it to the Gulf, Libya and Syria were on my list but IS et al have destroyed a lot of the interesting stuff.


Hyperbole. I tried to tell you it’s not propaganda but a widely accepted historical view according to the academic sources I linked to.

Matter of perspective, and I think your perspective is outmoded by roughly a century.


You’re pretending that this is all a result of Arab incompetence when it is the west cooperating with that incompetence that led to this. You have chips in the middle east and all of a sudden you want your money back.

Me personally, I have no chips, and I never voted for a government that had chips - I was too young and then it was Labour you fought wars in the ME when I was an adult. Also, you have to consider that it's been a century and a lot of places in the Gulf have backslid. This is a major difference between the Gulf and the Levant, where there is historically a different, more Urban, society that has developed Civil Institutions.

You are correct that the US etc. has propped up some dictators but those dictators overthrew more moderate monarchs installed by the British who were more inclined toward a more open society. About the only post-WW1 monarchy from that settlement to survive is Jordan.

Jordan is also arguable the safest and most progressive country in he Middle East.

As a subject of Elizabeth Regina I'm biased though.


I drink. I know a lot of people that do and lot that don’t big deal. Politicized ideas is no reason to carry a grudge towards an entire people.

I also don't lie about it unless I'm at my grandma's house or some shit.

See - I don't get this. Isn't not consuming alcohol a major element of Islam, I get that it's not THE defining feature but I still don't understand how it is that so many Muslims in the ME seem to drink so much - certainly Muslims I have met in the UK generally don't.

[AE Bravo]

"Not yet" is relative - you may wish to look at Arab discourse at the turn of the last Century whilst still under Ottoman rule. You are of course correct that the lack of democracy is partly because they general populace not enamoured of it, and don't appear to understand the concept.
The concept is understood but it is feared. This democratic peace theory destroyed Iraq. It requires changing of norms and the implications of that are unknown and should be feared across the middle east. Constitutional monarchy is the best one can hope for right now and it's the only realistic reform.

Now, perhaps you can see why I don't want people like that in my country, because my country is weak in many ways. Civil society in the UK and much of Europe is already fractured, we're just about holding it together here but if you look at our history over the last fifty years we're in danger of entering systemic decline.
Just because democracy may not be appealing to them at home doesn't mean they won't like it in an environment like Europe. The EU masses need to recognize that this is nothing more than gang culture and social isolation. Two Somali girls tried to join ISIS a few months ago in this state (colorado), but Islam is not the problem here. Yes it can be a source of violence for people with years of pent-up aggression or ignorance but condemning the belief system in its entirety is totally useless because fifty years from now the belief system will not be the same. 200 years ago my ancestors were worshipping the moon or venerating sacred trees while calling themselves Muslims, it keeps changing for better or worse.

Like I said - fall of Rome - it only takes a generation.
Crack down on the angry beards. They are the ones preaching the Islamization of the world and that the Syrian war is god's plan to biologically replace the infidel offspring with Muslim ones (this was actually the sermon in Medinah last week, again shows this is all ksa). They are successfully intimidating you, this is what they expect it's Jihadi trolling 101.

When Saudi Arabia becomes weak and its international standing lowered, they will harvest the rewards of students of this hate speech in Europe to maintain its religious power. Ideological leverage this is how they do it's been causing chaos on a regional level for 60 years.

To this I should have added "acceptance of maintaining or changing the regime through violence".
In Saudi probably, nowhere else I could think of. Violent human rights abuses are pretty unheard of, its mostly imprisonment and at the worst deportation. These people have families so you wouldn't want to alienate them, saying they broke the law and exiled them is already overboard.

We guarantee enough to keep body and soul together, not to live well.
When I look around I see the body doing well. People are happy and see the change over the years. It's interesting to witness what will become of it because right now it is the beacon of civilization in the middle east and I hope it keeps it up so everyone can eat their words. These countries have much to prove and one day hopefully they can distance themselves from the kingdom.

Matter of perspective - I assume in most Gulf states that if a woman wears a knee-length skirt and has her their unbround there'll be mutter of "deserved it" if she's raped.
Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

One thing I've come across talking to Turks, Arabs, and Africans is that a woman's hnour is protected by the men in her family, rather than by society in general. So a woman needs an escort in certain situations even in public lest she be assumed to be "fair game".
This is a family thing. Rich people in Asia or the west have the same attitude. Kuwait and Oman don't care about this much, neither does the UAE as long as the family is okay with it.

As I recall the Koran, or the Hadith, specifies that a Christian man's word is worth 1/3 of that of a Muslim man's in court - a woman's word is worth nothing - I believe this is actually a fact of law in states other than Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is obvious as soon as a Christian man tries to bring a prosecution against a Muslim for raping his daughter.
1. Not the Qur'an

2. The Hadith tells me to drink camelpiss, I'd like to see all the clerics do this.

And I don't think what you said is true anyway.

Matter of perspective, and I think your perspective is outmoded by roughly a century.
Back up your updated perspective with sources.

installed by the British who were more inclined toward a more open society. About the only post-WW1 monarchy from that settlement to survive is Jordan.

Jordan is also arguable the safest and most progressive country in he Middle East.
But Britain installed all Gulf monarchs. I've been to Jordan, I love the people and the political system but that country is a joke in hindsight. It's just there. I think some British guy accidentally poured some coffee on the map and wala there it is JORDAN. Out of all the arbitrarily drawn borders...

See - I don't get this. Isn't not consuming alcohol a major element of Islam, I get that it's not THE defining feature but I still don't understand how it is that so many Muslims in the ME seem to drink so much - certainly Muslims I have met in the UK generally don't.
Those same people won't tell you that the companions of the prophet used to drink all the time before it was regarded as a sin, and even then Islam's birth still had Muslims that drink. I pray for a day that these people realize that these were laid-back dudes who were sinners and human, and they were not persecuted for it until uptight caliphs came along.

All you have to do to be a Muslim is declare your faith.

[Pannonian]

Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

They can have cultural shaming in their own country. Over here, we expect it to be backed by the law. No doubt there are other things than rape that are culturally shameful in the UK, but backed by the law in the ME. That's ok. They can have their world, and we'll have ours.

[AE Bravo]

Don't get me wrong it is backed up by the law of course.

[Viking]

Poland is not ex-Soviet.

Yeah, well.


But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.

From an organisational point of view, there doesn't have to be much difference at all between regaining independence and establishing it.


Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

This is beside the point, as should be obvious when I just wrote that Syrians ≠ Kazakhs. The point is that Syria has something in common with Kazakhstan, namely Islam as the dominant religion (Syria is/was a relatively secular state, anyway).

In non-Muslim Europe, there is even less in common. Still no language, still no ethnicity - and no religion, in common. There's almost nothing. In Kazakhstan, there is something; something not insignificant.


That's a rather low bar, isn't it?

Given the context, it isn't. We could set the bar so high that no existing country would qualify; but there would be no point in that, either.


Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.

Any group with a high level of education (relative to the rest of the world) could integrate almost anywhere. Assimilation is another matter.

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Indonesia; could you elaborate?


They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

Bold statement. There are many scenarios I don't think you are giving serious consideration. Returning to this below.


There are also a lot of inter-state projects that will aim to further unify the GCC as an economic force

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?


All a sham

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.


All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.


Turkey had a lot to do with it and the weapons fell into Islamist hands anyway with or without foreign training of these militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

They were Islamists right from the get-go and have been infesting eastern Libya for years with pent-up aggression for the regime. LIFG and AQIM affiliates/admirers saw the spring as an opportunity to hijack everything mid-revolution rather than Egypt’s post-revolution hijacking. These are armed Islamists that were trained by Turkey and funded by pretty much everyone including ksa and qatar. Everyone turned against Ghaddafi in support of Islamist militias that were entrusted with regime change.


Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.


Ghaddafi could have cracked down on these movements if not for nato advocating total regime change, as if anything can possibly be guaranteed in a movement filled with affiliates of known transnational jihadi movements.

Gaddafi didn't manage to prevent half of the country from slipping out of his control in the first place - without any foreign intervention. The faith in this deluded narcissist seems rather misplaced.


Actually, ISIS is already in multiple fronts including yemen, sinai, tunisia, algeria, and libya.

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

[Montmorency]

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Malaysia; could you elaborate?

The Dutch language in Indonesia died shortly after independence. In fact, there is no longer a native ethnic-Dutch population in Indonesia. This is not the case simply because some native ethnic-Dutch left the region after the war and independence. It is because they mixed and assimilated so thoroughly that they simply stopped passing on their Dutch language and culture within a single generation.

Admittedly, the role played by population proportions is large. After independence, only a few tens of thousands of "full-blooded" Dutch remained in the long-term. There were already some hundreds of thousands of Indo-Dutch (i.e. "mixed"), but their assimilated identity had already been forming for centuries. Nevertheless, it is one of a few notable cases of entire European colonial populations 'going native', so to speak.


IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner

They could do that in Libya, even though they never even accomplished it in Syria - their backyard?


Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Islamists and jihadists have and have had a relatively-negligible presence in Libya. The conflict there is far more tribal than even one such as Syria's.

[Fragony]

Dutch language died because almost all were killed, read up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bersiap

bwana blanka, white monkey

[AE Bravo]

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?
No. But then you have Jordan.

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.
Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.
Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys. Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.

Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.
NATO in general. they wanted Gaddafi out:

1. Saudi Arabia always had a personal grudge, he hurt their pride. This was a dictator that was a huge threat to Iran, so for Saudi to cater to Iranian interest is a sign of imprudence and nato exploited this utter lack of political pragmatism by funding wahhabi islamists that al saud perpetuates. Here's an eerily foreshadowing verbal example of said grudge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo

2. You forget no-fly zones, BOMBING a sovereign state, publicly advocating for the removal of a sovereign, and arming of local insurgents and/or creating a situation where your weapons would fall into insurgent hands. NATO was at war with a regime and had a tactical alliance with islamist insurgents. Bashar Al Assad opposed this intervention might i add, despite his Iranian allies he recognized the aggressiveness of Turkey and Saudi, who have been constantly empowering Islamism in the region.

3. Those weapons made a huge difference just like the airstrikes made a huge difference. What also made a huge difference was the decision to internationally condemn qaddafi without highlighting the impending Islamist threat that oozed from this “revolution.” A sovereign was betrayed and on what basis that concerns any nato member or any other arab country?

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.
Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening. You have to understand that Libya is a different animal.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.
Even if western media would still fail by showing these Islamists as freedom fighters it wouldn’t be a complete state of emergency with the regime being targeted domestically and internationally. When the president comes out and says “you have to go,” the political implications of that are dangerous as hell and you’ll find your neighbors start clowning on you/kicking you while your down until you fall. The west empowered these movements you're overestimating their influence prior to that.

Nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The concept is understood but it is feared. This democratic peace theory destroyed Iraq. It requires changing of norms and the implications of that are unknown and should be feared across the middle east. Constitutional monarchy is the best one can hope for right now and it's the only realistic reform.

People only fear what they do not understand.

I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Yet, we are a democracy.


Just because democracy may not be appealing to them at home doesn't mean they won't like it in an environment like Europe. The EU masses need to recognize that this is nothing more than gang culture and social isolation. Two Somali girls tried to join ISIS a few months ago in this state (colorado), but Islam is not the problem here. Yes it can be a source of violence for people with years of pent-up aggression or ignorance but condemning the belief system in its entirety is totally useless because fifty years from now the belief system will not be the same. 200 years ago my ancestors were worshipping the moon or venerating sacred trees while calling themselves Muslims, it keeps changing for better or worse.

So, socially maladjusted gang-bangers who are afraid of democracy? Are you sure that's how you want to paint Arabs?


Crack down on the angry beards. They are the ones preaching the Islamization of the world and that the Syrian war is god's plan to biologically replace the infidel offspring with Muslim ones (this was actually the sermon in Medinah last week, again shows this is all ksa). They are successfully intimidating you, this is what they expect it's Jihadi trolling 101.

*Strokes beard*

Seems to me, there are an AWFUL LOT of what you are calling extreme Islamists in Europea already - if there were so few to start with then I can't see how there would be any left in the ME with all the ones in Europe.


When Saudi Arabia becomes weak and its international standing lowered, they will harvest the rewards of students of this hate speech in Europe to maintain its religious power. Ideological leverage this is how they do it's been causing chaos on a regional level for 60 years.

When the Gulf States run out of oil everybody will suffer horribly - about rhe only up side would appear to be that with all the oil fields empty they won't be able to set them on fire.


In Saudi probably, nowhere else I could think of. Violent human rights abuses are pretty unheard of, its mostly imprisonment and at the worst deportation. These people have families so you wouldn't want to alienate them, saying they broke the law and exiled them is already overboard.

Syria, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran...


Whoa. No. Cultural shaming on the rapist actually for being a thirsty loser with no pickup game.

So you're so regressive you think that rapists do it for sexual gratification? "Oh, you couldn't get her you had to rape her?"

That's worse!


This is a family thing. Rich people in Asia or the west have the same attitude. Kuwait and Oman don't care about this much, neither does the UAE as long as the family is okay with it.

In the West a woman's honour is protected by society in general, not by her father or husband - we have immigrants here who kill their daughters for perceived slights that even the most zealous and blindsighted European would consider minor.


1. Not the Qur'an

2. The Hadith tells me to drink camelpiss, I'd like to see all the clerics do this.

And I don't think what you said is true anyway.

From what I have read the Koran instructs you to refrain from gambling and intoxicants - which is why Muslims don't drink and why we no longer play Chess with dice.


Back up your updated perspective with sources.

I lost interest, from where I'm sitting your argument made no sense - I demonstrated that the original inhabitants of the Alluvial plane were neither Arab nor Semitic, I could dig up something showing the people in Caanan originally spoke a non-Semitic language, but would it matter?


But Britain installed all Gulf monarchs. I've been to Jordan, I love the people and the political system but that country is a joke in hindsight. It's just there. I think some British guy accidentally poured some coffee on the map and wala there it is JORDAN. Out of all the arbitrarily drawn borders...

We created Trans-Jordan to limit Jewish territorial expansion by dividing Palestine in half. Originally what is now "Israel" and "Jordan" would have been "Palestine" because Classicists drew that may and divided it into the old Roman provinces. Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.


Those same people won't tell you that the companions of the prophet used to drink all the time before it was regarded as a sin, and even then Islam's birth still had Muslims that drink. I pray for a day that these people realize that these were laid-back dudes who were sinners and human, and they were not persecuted for it until uptight caliphs came along.

All you have to do to be a Muslim is declare your faith.

If you want Grace for your sins you might try Christianity, Islam is a religion of Kings and warriors and as such it is somewhat shorter on forgiveness.

[AE Bravo]

People only fear what they do not understand.

I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Yet, we are a democracy.
different norms. as for the king of saudi arabia, he is the most powerful figure in the country unlike your queen. this is why she visits him and not the other way around.

So, socially maladjusted gang-bangers who are afraid of democracy? Are you sure that's how you want to paint Arabs?
that’s not what i said, but i can see how you in particular would infer this.

Seems to me, there are an AWFUL LOT of what you are calling extreme Islamists in Europea already - if there were so few to start with then I can't see how there would be any left in the ME with all the ones in Europe.
trolling.

When the Gulf States run out of oil everybody will suffer horribly - about rhe only up side would appear to be that with all the oil fields empty they won't be able to set them on fire.
not funny. i don't think you understand how horrible that is, we have family in yemen. but even then, suffer horribly is exaggerating. your just talking.

Syria, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran…
talking about the gulf

So you're so regressive you think that rapists do it for sexual gratification? "Oh, you couldn't get her you had to rape her?”
uhh…. wasn’t being serious dude. the point you initially made about rape is stereotypical rubbish.

In the West a woman's honour is protected by society in general, not by her father or husband - we have immigrants here who kill their daughters for perceived slights that even the most zealous and blindsighted European would consider minor.
so what? do you feel I should defend these immigrants or are muslims regressive monkeys for the rest of their lives…

From what I have read the Koran instructs you to refrain from gambling and intoxicants - which is why Muslims don't drink and why we no longer play Chess with dice.
so what?

I lost interest, from where I'm sitting your argument made no sense - I demonstrated that the original inhabitants of the Alluvial plane were neither Arab nor Semitic, I could dig up something showing the people in Caanan originally spoke a non-Semitic language, but would it matter?
but why should anyone (not just me) take your word for it about anything? who are you to deny sources with your own words like they’re gospel

Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.
and what does that mean

All in all cynical and mean-spirited post.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

different norms. as for the king of saudi arabia, he is the most powerful figure in the country unlike your queen. this is why she visits him and not the other way around.

Doesn't the Saudi King have to answer to the Imans or whatever they are? Here the Bishops ultimately answer to the Queen. Legally the Queen makes the law, passes judgement and controls the Church.

Yet we live in a democracy. HM Queen has only visited Saudia Arabia once in 1979.

On the last King's visit to the Queen in Scotland: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-best-story-about-the-queen-you-will-read-today--eJYX859rsl

So either you're ill-informed or you thought I wouldn't check.

There was also the time the Guards band played the "Imperial March" from Star Wars when his Highness arrived.


that’s not what i said, but i can see how you in particular would infer this.

No, that was in essence what you said, that these people fear democracy, are socially isolated and operate within a "gang culture". You may have meant something else, but that did not come across.


trolling.

You're dodging the point with an ad hominem - you want us to accept that the sorts of nutters we have in Europe are a minority in the Gulf and Levant, but the fact that they keep coming here AND they have created IS says otherwise.


not funny. i don't think you understand how horrible that is, we have family in yemen.

I was being completely literal - I have no faith in the Gulf States' ability to pacify their populations without oil money and about the only unside to that is that they will drain the wells and when it does all kick off we won't have burning wells ruining the climate of the planet for years.


talking about the gulf

Currently the Gulf is relatively quiet due to the aforementioned bribes being paid to the populace with oil money, I can't seem to keep up with your frame of reference though. One minute it's about the whole ME, then just the Gulf.

A good example of torture in the Gulf would be Oman though, although that was a few dcades back now (and the British helped with it).


uhh…. wasn’t being serious dude. the point you initially made about rape is stereotypical rubbish.

Again, "she was asking for it" is a claimpretty common to sexist pigs across the world, not just Arabs. Certainly, though, we hear a lot of it from Arabs and other Muslims here in the UK.


so what? do you feel I should defend these immigrants or are muslims regressive monkeys for the rest of their lives…

On the contrary I expect you to condemn them - I also expected you to condemn rapists but instead you make a joke of it.


so what?

So, if the Koran instructs you to do something, I was under the impression that was not negotiable - because the Koran is the infallible word of God as transmitted through His Prophet.

Correct me if I'm wrong - it's what I learned at school and university.


but why should anyone (not just me) take your word for it about anything? who are you to deny sources with your own words like they’re gospel

Who am I? A PhD candidate studying medieval Christian heresy with a side line the Classics who studied, among others, Alexander's Conquest of the Persian Empire and an amateur interest in Archaeology. I can also, as I said, read a map and a book. Give me a year and I'll write you a paper on all the people in the Levant who aren't really Arabs.


and what does that mean

It means that it's profoundly weird that when looking at Jordan, which is doing better than almost any other country in the region at almost everything, you decide to call it a "joke". You could have said it was an example for the other countries in the region to aspire to.


All in all cynical and mean-spirited post.

Stop excusing the failings of the people in the Middle East, a thousand years ago Babylon had street lighting and what was very nearly a public health service. You are basically characterising your own people as stupid and cowardly, unable or unwilling to realise that they have spent a century or so in a cultural and social backslide.

Reading your posts on this is like reading the posts of an American trying to deny a Public Health service would work in the US.

[AE Bravo]

1979? Look up more recent visits, the difference is the king is head of state (does not answer to clergy) and the queen is good at being admired for uselessness.

No, that was in essence what you said, that these people fear democracy, are socially isolated and operate within a "gang culture". You may have meant something else, but that did not come across.
The people who resort to violence. Obviously.

You're dodging the point with an ad hominem - you want us to accept that the sorts of nutters we have in Europe are a minority in the Gulf and Levant, but the fact that they keep coming here AND they have created IS says otherwise.
They are students of salafism. Your problem is salafism. The poor, oppressed, or uneducated are easy targets.

Again, "she was asking for it" is a claimpretty common to sexist pigs across the world, not just Arabs. Certainly, though, we hear a lot of it from Arabs and other Muslims here in the UK.
They can go to hell then. This is not how I was raised or most people I know were, you can believe what you want.

On the contrary I expect you to condemn them - I also expected you to condemn rapists but instead you make a joke of it.
The point is your initial point about rape is false. How can anyone not be offended by that especially when it isn't true. Disgusting.

So, if the Koran instructs you to do something, I was under the impression that was not negotiable - because the Koran is the infallible word of God as transmitted through His Prophet.
There are trends in Muslim countries, you get your shit together once you get old, but even that is totally up to you in a non-salafi environment. The Qur'an has regulations on how to treat slaves when they were socially acceptable. It says that adultery is a sin but if you think majority actually adhere to this than you are dehumanizing plain and simple.

Who am I? A PhD candidate studying medieval Christian heresy with a side line the Classics who studied, among others, Alexander's Conquest of the Persian Empire and an amateur interest in Archaeology. I can also, as I said, read a map and a book. Give me a year and I'll write you a paper on all the people in the Levant who aren't really Arabs.
Putting aside the douchey response I hope you do write that paper and come to realize you're wrong, but maybe you'll run with it anyway I imagine.

Please don't list your credentials again, it's embarrassing. How incredibly pretentious. This is a message board.

It means that it's profoundly weird that when looking at Jordan, which is doing better than almost any other country in the region at almost everything, you decide to call it a "joke". You could have said it was an example for the other countries in the region to aspire to.
It certainly is an example to aspire to which is why I said I love Jordan's political system. Kuwait is also very interesting. Jordanians would strongly disagree with you that their country is doing better "at almost everything." Jordan and Jordanians have the best relationship with the gulf (definitely in the UAE most of all), but the country doesn't come close to the gulf. They want to make their country better and Dubai serves as a model for all Arabs.

Stop excusing the failings of the people in the Middle East, a thousand years ago Babylon had street lighting and what was very nearly a public health service. You are basically characterising your own people as stupid and cowardly, unable or unwilling to realise that they have spent a century or so in a cultural and social backslide.
I am baffled that you came to this conclusion doctor.

[Papewaio]

The Queen is both head of state and head of the clergy (Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

Also the British Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over a dozen other countries. The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations which has over 2 billion people and a combined GDP about ten times that of Saudi Arabia. With some of the most developed and free citizens within those member nations.

[Fragony]

The Queen is both head of state and head of the clergy (Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

Also the British Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over a dozen other countries. The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations which has over 2 billion people and a combined GDP about ten times that of Saudi Arabia. With some of the most developed and free citizens within those member nations.


As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

[Greyblades]

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

[Fragony]

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

The same thing my mommy said about various things

[Papewaio]

As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

Applicable to all monarchs and heads of religion.

However mileage does vary compare and contrast the current Pope with predecessors.

[AE Bravo]

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1979? Look up more recent visits, the difference is the king is head of state (does not answer to clergy) and the queen is good at being admired for uselessness.

I cannot see a record of a more recent visit by the Queen to Saudi Arabia, Prince Charles was the one who visited when King Abdullah died. You are also labouring under a miss-apprehension, the queen is not admired for being useless, but for doing nothing. Ever heard the phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick"?

She has in the past chosen a Prime Minister without reference to the House of Commons (that did not go well) and it 2010 she threatened to nullify elections and have them re-run after the parties spent a few weeks in deadlock.

She could, if she so wished, dismiss parliament or strip it of its executive function entirely and reduce it to a consultative body which drafted law.

Granted, there would be a revolt, but she has that legal power.


The people who resort to violence. Obviously.

Then you needed to preface that whole passage with "the people who resort to violence are..." if you don't want to be miss-understood.


They are students of salafism. Your problem is salafism. The poor, oppressed, or uneducated are easy targets.

Yes, I am aware, but a lot of the Imans who whip them up come from the Levant and the Gulf, and now you have IS so I think these extremists are more prevalent in the Gulf itself than you want to admit, or are aware of. If that were not the case then I have to wonder why the well of nutjobs has not run dry.


They can go to hell then. This is not how I was raised or most people I know were, you can believe what you want.

The point is your initial point about rape is false. How can anyone not be offended by that especially when it isn't true. Disgusting.

Levity regarding rape offends me. I am deeply suspicious of the claim that you don't have the "she was asking for it" problem in the Middle East given that it seems to be a view of many of the Middle Easteners I have met - not all or even necessarily a majority but still more than the Europeans I have met. Maybe only arseholes come to the UK.

There are trends in Muslim countries, you get your shit together once you get old, but even that is totally up to you in a non-salafi environment. The Qur'an has regulations on how to treat slaves when they were socially acceptable. It says that adultery is a sin but if you think majority actually adhere to this than you are dehumanizing plain and simple.


Putting aside the douchey response I hope you do write that paper and come to realize you're wrong, but maybe you'll run with it anyway I imagine.

Please don't list your credentials again, it's embarrassing. How incredibly pretentious. This is a message board.

You asked who I was, I answered, partly so that you know I'm not making pretensions to being a Middle Eastern Scholar or a Linguist, but you can take it the other way if you want.


It certainly is an example to aspire to which is why I said I love Jordan's political system. Kuwait is also very interesting. Jordanians would strongly disagree with you that their country is doing better "at almost everything." Jordan and Jordanians have the best relationship with the gulf (definitely in the UAE most of all), but the country doesn't come close to the gulf. They want to make their country better and Dubai serves as a model for all Arabs.

Doesn't Dubai still have debter's prison? Dubai is also famous here for the horrific treatment of Sub-Continental workers who live in conditions that have been compared to African slavery two hundred years ago - the country is also an absolute monarchy with no elections, people are put to death if convicted of homosexuality and imprisoned for kissing.


I am baffled that you came to this conclusion doctor.

Ah, no, I am still working on the PhD. Perhaps the problem is that what I see as failings you do not, and therefore we are talking at cross-purposes.

[AE Bravo]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=queen%20visits%20gulf

Yes, I am aware, but a lot of the Imans who whip them up come from the Levant and the Gulf, and now you have IS so I think these extremists are more prevalent in the Gulf itself than you want to admit, or are aware of. If that were not the case then I have to wonder why the well of nutjobs has not run dry.
I have a feeling the majority went to school in Saudi Arabia or regularly go to wahhabi-funded mosques. There is a distinction between the gulf and Saudi Arabia, different regimes. Oman doesn't care about which sect you belong to, you pray in the same place as shias whether you're a sufi or sunni. UAE is a federation that has cracked down on the brotherhood back in 2011 and is known to oppose Islamist movements or any prospect of wahhabism in the country, we were at war with wahhabis some 60-80 years ago along with Oman. Kuwait isn't known to spawn these people, Bahrain is a Shia-majority so certainly not either.

The gulf takes control of their Islamic institutions and monitor their mosques. Whatever type of people those mosques produce are generally a reflection of the state's worldview, and what you are witnessing in the UK is Saudi-Wahhabi zeal at its finest. Your mosques belong to them.

Doesn't Dubai still have debter's prison? Dubai is also famous here for the horrific treatment of Sub-Continental workers who live in conditions that have been compared to African slavery two hundred years ago - the country is also an absolute monarchy with no elections, people are put to death if convicted of homosexuality and imprisoned for kissing.
I don't know why the steps being taken to solve these issues aren't covered, locals speak about this often and nationals are actually ashamed of this, it's a serious issue. This doesn't change the fact that Dubai is a model for Arabs, that's why it's such a diverse city.

On paper it's supposed to be sharia, conservative Arabs and Muslims might hate Dubai. I was there a few weeks ago and kissing is a minor offense, but pda/public sex can lead to deportation. Homosexuals aren't executed, that is a lie.

See you say these things but there really isn't that much negativity to say about Dubai itself. I can list all of UK's shortcomings and that will blow it out of the water but I understand it. Also because I've actually been to the UK.

[Gilrandir]

Yeah, well.
The point is that Syria has something in common with Kazakhstan, namely Islam as the dominant religion (Syria is/was a relatively secular state, anyway).

In non-Muslim Europe, there is even less in common. Still no language, still no ethnicity - and no religion, in common. There's almost nothing. In Kazakhstan, there is something; something not insignificant.


I disagree.
Do you really consider Europe non-Muslim? What about numerous Turks in Germany (where most immigrants seem to be heading) to say nothing of "non-Muslim" France? So Syrians are likely to find in Europe as many things in common as they would in Kazakhstan.




I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Is there a constitution in Britain or am I missing something?:inquisitive:



We created Trans-Jordan to limit Jewish territorial expansion by dividing Palestine in half. Originally what is now "Israel" and "Jordan" would have been "Palestine" because Classicists drew that may and divided it into the old Roman provinces. Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

I would also like to add that if we adopt the perspective of HitWithThe5, many modern countries are jokes. I don't pretend to be a connoseuir of the Arab world, but it seems to me (as a layman) that there is not much difference between Bahrain and Qatar or Oman and UAE or Kuwait and Qatar (in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, traditions and mentality) to justify carving the south of the Gulf into so many countries. Or between Algeria and Tunisia, Lebannon and Syria. And we can leave the Arabs alone and say the same about Bolivia vs Peru, Colombia vs Venezuela, Costa Rica vs Panama etc. Too many jokes and coffee-stains on the world map today.

[Viking]

The Dutch language in Indonesia died shortly after independence. In fact, there is no longer a native ethnic-Dutch population in Indonesia. This is not the case simply because some native ethnic-Dutch left the region after the war and independence. It is because they mixed and assimilated so thoroughly that they simply stopped passing on their Dutch language and culture within a single generation.

Admittedly, the role played by population proportions is large. After independence, only a few tens of thousands of "full-blooded" Dutch remained in the long-term. There were already some hundreds of thousands of Indo-Dutch (i.e. "mixed"), but their assimilated identity had already been forming for centuries. Nevertheless, it is one of a few notable cases of entire European colonial populations 'going native', so to speak.

As far as I can see, the war in Indonesia and subsequent exodus of Dutch people played a huge role here; so this lesson does not seem overly relevant when calculating the odds of e.g. Syrians assimilating in Europe. When you have great disturbance in a country, things work differently.


They could do that in Libya, even though they never even accomplished it in Syria - their backyard?

The rebel front in Syria never collapsed. If it had collapsed in Libya, and then IS managed to enter the scene and open a front, then yes, I think they could recruit efficiently from many Libyan rebel groups (and they presumably do recruit from other rebel groups in Syria thanks to their impressive performance there).


Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.

Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys.

Which islamists are you actually talking about? According to some, the forces currently at play in Libya have very different motives (https://theconversation.com/debunking-three-dangerous-myths-about-the-conflict-in-libya-36521).


Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.

Not by normal definitions of the word operation. The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power, which took just a few months. After that, NATO largely had a passive role.

That what happened next may not have been what NATO leaders hoped for is another matter.


Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.


I disagree.
Do you really consider Europe non-Muslim? What about numerous Turks in Germany (where most immigrants seem to be heading) to say nothing of "non-Muslim" France? So Syrians are likely to find in Europe as many things in common as they would in Kazakhstan.

Turks in Germany are immigrants, they are an example of the phenomenon I am talking about.

Some European countries might have Muslim populations that can be counted as native, but they are still in the minority (or just a big fraction); so any assimilation into these groups doesn't eliminate the fundamental issue. Albania (and Kosovo) is probably the closest you get to a Muslim-majority country in Europe, and, yeah, I believe Syrian refugees would be more likely to assimilate in Albania than e.g. in Northern Europe over time. But it would also depend on how capable of and interested in the state is when it comes to integrating the refugees into society; a poorly-integrated group is likely to stay separate.

[AE Bravo]

I would also like to add that if we adopt the perspective of HitWithThe5, many modern countries are jokes. I don't pretend to be a connoseuir of the Arab world, but it seems to me (as a layman) that there is not much difference between Bahrain and Qatar or Oman and UAE or Kuwait and Qatar (in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, traditions and mentality) to justify carving the south of the Gulf into so many countries. Or between Algeria and Tunisia, Lebannon and Syria. And we can leave the Arabs alone and say the same about Bolivia vs Peru, Colombia vs Venezuela, Costa Rica vs Panama etc. Too many jokes and coffee-stains on the world map today.
That's true, but I don't dislike it just because of its geography. I don't like the way their monarchy dealt with Palestinians, their military cooperation with Israel (arms deals), and their Hashemite monarchy. These Hashemites claim they are descendants of the prophet:

1. First of all this doesn't mean anything. Islam does not recognize kings, there is only one monarch and that is god in Islam, caliphs are a post-da'wa construction. There is no framework for governance in Islam. Even Al Saud do not make such ridiculous claims for themselves in lineage.
2. If we go by their ancestral claim, they are actually descendants of the prophet's evil uncle Abu Lahab.
3. You'll find quite a few Jordanians shaking their head in agreement when you mention Black September's atrocities and other Hashemite meddling against Palestinians.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, I dislike all their governments but Jordan's stance on the issue I find repulsive from an Arab state that professes what I mentioned above. That's another topic though I don't care to discuss. I like Jordan.

[Papewaio]

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

As much as I like the Queen I'm a Republican. A republic where I vote for the head of state not where the parliament elects it which is the one choice in the last referendum in Australia. I'm also a Greenie who believes in nuclear power and genetic engineering.

So do take my care factor in who is more powerful with a grain of salt as I care more about Kings and Queens on a chess board.

Now having said that. The King of Saud is a very powerful man whose power is linked with his money which is based on his oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is not (yet) recognized as a leading light for human rights, arts, sciences, cuisine or military power. UK ranks higher in probably all of those including cuisine, I'll let the better travelled Europeans have a last say on that vote.

So Saudi Arabia wealth is oil reserves x oil price per barrel. Oil price goes down so does the reach of Saudi Arabia. Run out of oil or alternatives become cheaply available and things get really desperate. Not terrible if the right infrastructure (including human investment) is done in Saudi Arabia. After all they could provide all their energy needs with wind and solar.

Anyhow with the increase of solar, wind, micro grids and electric cars the demand for petrol will diminish over time. Oil has other uses, some of which the end products are far more valuable then just burning petrol. But the demand for these are paltry compared with petrol. I do assume the other products will increase in availability as the relative supply will increase. Who knows maybe home 3D printing will take up some of the demand.

So just based on current global trends oil nations will need to find alternative methods of propping up their economies. Much like Australia where when the commodities merry go round stops the share market plummets.

So for my 2 cents minus taxes, tariffs and exchange rate costs... The King Of Saudi Arabia power peaked with peak oil and is only going to slide down as the world progresses to other options.

[Montmorency]

The Saudi family is more powerful than the Queen of England - in the Arabian peninsula, and few other places.


Yet they united against Gaddafi.

No, they didn't. :inquisitive:


The rebel front in Syria never collapsed. If it had collapsed in Libya, and then IS managed to enter the scene and open a front, then yes, I think they could recruit efficiently from many Libyan rebel groups (and they presumably do recruit from other rebel groups in Syria thanks to their impressive performance there).

Double :inquisitive: I can't even begin to imagine a logical process for that notion.

At any rate, the vast majority of IS fighters come from two categories: 1. Foreigners from Central Asia and North Africa and 2. Long-standing Islamist militias from Iraq.


Not by normal definitions of the word operation. The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power, which took just a few months. After that, NATO largely had a passive role.

That what happened next may not have been what NATO leaders hoped for is another matter.

Also a strange comment. One of the biggest arguments from military POVs against the Libyan semi-intervention was that it was such a poorly-planned and organized operation specifically with respect to its scope and goals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=queen%20visits%20gulf

So she visited the UAE - that's not Saudi Arabia.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.


I have a feeling the majority went to school in Saudi Arabia or regularly go to wahhabi-funded mosques. There is a distinction between the gulf and Saudi Arabia, different regimes. Oman doesn't care about which sect you belong to, you pray in the same place as shias whether you're a sufi or sunni. UAE is a federation that has cracked down on the brotherhood back in 2011 and is known to oppose Islamist movements or any prospect of wahhabism in the country, we were at war with wahhabis some 60-80 years ago along with Oman. Kuwait isn't known to spawn these people, Bahrain is a Shia-majority so certainly not either.

The gulf takes control of their Islamic institutions and monitor their mosques. Whatever type of people those mosques produce are generally a reflection of the state's worldview, and what you are witnessing in the UK is Saudi-Wahhabi zeal at its finest. Your mosques belong to them.

You are, indeed, correct that we have a big problem with Saudi funded Mosques here, it's taken a few decades but the government here has finally grasped the nature of the problem.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.


I don't know why the steps being taken to solve these issues aren't covered, locals speak about this often and nationals are actually ashamed of this, it's a serious issue. This doesn't change the fact that Dubai is a model for Arabs, that's why it's such a diverse city.

The Emir of Dubai is an absolute monarch and one of the most wealthy individuals in the world, but he has allowed Indian workers to live in shipping containers - and the same is going on in neighbouring Qatar. I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.


On paper it's supposed to be sharia, conservative Arabs and Muslims might hate Dubai. I was there a few weeks ago and kissing is a minor offense, but pda/public sex can lead to deportation. Homosexuals aren't executed, that is a lie.

Well, having sex in public might get you locked up here, too.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.


See you say these things but there really isn't that much negativity to say about Dubai itself. I can list all of UK's shortcomings and that will blow it out of the water but I understand it. Also because I've actually been to the UK.

Aside from the oppressive legal system, the absolute monarch, the dependence on oil-wealth, the criminalisation of homosexuality and the treatment of foreign labourers, you mean?

I hear it's a great place if you have money and hell on Earth if, as a foreign worker, you lose your job and don't have enough money to pay your debts.

[Husar]

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

[Papewaio]

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

[AE Bravo]

Papewaio - you're right about the queen long live the sweet old lady :) . All I'm saying is Al Saud currently enjoy more power, both actual power and soft power. This monarchy greenlit the establishment of US bases that enabled the war in Iraq, that is power. To create wars and fund Islamists without other heads of states uttering so much as a word in disapproval. Net worth and the current demand for oil make these guys more important than the queen. Queen does not have actual political power why overcomplicate things... Nobody cares about her potential power.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet
This is pointless so agree to disagree. Queen is lovely though and much appreciated for paying respects for the best Arab leader ever the benevolent founder of the UAE in the grand mosque. Very classy and no Arabophobia or Islamophobia or mosquephobia see ;)

Cultured lady who travels, you should try it.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.
I have to agree with ole Bashar that isis would not have existed without Abdul Wahhab. The Muslim Brotherhood has a very inconsistent ideology and body of work that can appeal to anyone, that's why they're ridiculous. Their earlier texts differ from now but Wahhabism and MB are both revivalist movements. These are regressive Islamic disciplines adopted by the ignorant.

I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.
Agreed.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.
Yeah I just don't see it. Not that it matters at all (or made a difference) these anti-homosexual laws were put in place initially by colonial British. Other than that it's normal to see gays out of the closet. Some holding hands in the mall not giving a shit, some related to me, and I know for a fact that every tribe has got to have at least more than one gay person in the family. I'd say this is true for Kuwait more prominently and even Bahrain lesser extent. But you are right about the official law, we are expected to maintain some Sharia as this clearly conflicts with Islam. If it was once okay in Lebanon maybe it will be here.

Maybe you should shift your attention towards homosexuality in Russia, seems more serious even though it's not really a religious grudge. That makes it worse.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.
Like someone mentioned above they didn't.

Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans. You cant invade a country and expect to be absolved of the effects of your interference. By violating the sovereignty of the state nato had dealt a huge blow to regional security. Those tuareg fighters went straight back to mali with the weapons they looted, same with boko haram. Gaddafi had better arms but britain, france, and the us couldn’t help but get involved in the sahel for some reason. Militia leaders in Libya were charged with filling the security vacuum and they had much to loot from nato leftovers.

The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I wish eu countries would just stop listening to the usa in ME affairs. The usa has a history of overstretched imperialism, imprudent and short-sighted policies mixed with humanitarian militarism bs that lacks any commitment to nation-building. Iran is just so much more pragmatic and prudent than all these countries combined it’s funny. if you can’t handle the costs of restoration DONT INTERVENE.

Of course now that the coalition airstrikes are aimed at iraq and syria these jihadists of various stripes are settled in libya with their own lovely political environment. Lets check up on them a few years from now isis might pale in comparison.

[Husar]

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

[Montmorency]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

[AE Bravo]

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?
Can the queen send regular forces anywhere?

[Montmorency]

Well, she already is.

[Husar]

Well, she already is.

The queen or the parliament?

[Greyblades]

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.

[Papewaio]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

[Fragony]

Another major fight in a German asylum centre, the thermaphysisists didn't agree with the other physitions apparently, eye-surgions and mathematitions joined in this highly sensative scientific debate.

[Gilrandir]

But it would also depend on how capable of and interested in the state is when it comes to integrating the refugees into society; a poorly-integrated group is likely to stay separate.

I believe France would give other Europeans a most useful advice on how to integrate a huge Muslim populace and keep the civil peace and unity of the society.


That's true, but I don't dislike it just because of its geography. I don't like the way their monarchy dealt with Palestinians, their military cooperation with Israel (arms deals), and their Hashemite monarchy.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, I dislike all their governments but Jordan's stance on the issue I find repulsive from an Arab state that professes what I mentioned above.

Personal distate of a country's policies is not a reason to call the country a joke.




Anyhow with the increase of solar, wind, micro grids and electric cars the demand for petrol will diminish over time.


I think over QUITE A LONGISH SPELL of time. Oil lobbysts will do (and are in fact doing) their utmost to play down or hold in check progress in alternative energy consumption.



So just based on current global trends oil nations will need to find alternative methods of propping up their economies.

Or will try hard to put a stop on anything that threatens their current source of income.

[Papewaio]

Solar and Wind power already are on par with coal supplied electricity at the home for cost per kw.

It's not if electric cars will make an impact on oil prices its when it will happen. Maybe the VW scandal will speed up the adoption of electric as it seems there is no such thing as a green diesel.

[AE Bravo]

Personal distate of a country's policies is not a reason to call the country a joke.
Their monarchy is a joke then, for the reasons I mentioned.

[Husar]

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.


The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

But then how is Britain a democracy as PVC said, if an unelected monarch gets the last say on all the important things?
It sounds like eating your cake and having a fine wine with it.

[Montmorency]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic? :dizzy2:

[Husar]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic? :dizzy2:

We don't have an unelected Monarch who has all these powers to turn the country into a monarchy again or can reign in almost any decision of the elected politicians as PVC described and Greyblades and Pape apparently verified.
Or maybe the queen can't actually do all that in reality and then she is rather powerless in reality, how can both be true?

I would never claim that the German president is more powerful than the King of SA. Yes, he has to sign all the laws, but his actual power is more that of someone who can make a moral point in speeches, to assume that he holds actual power due to a few of his functions is a bit much. He can surely refuse to sign a law now and then if he can explain it well, but I'm pretty sure the actual powers of the king of SA go a bit beyond that.

If Saudi Arabia is not a democracy because the king has too much power, how can your country be a democracy if your king/queen has even more power?

[Montmorency]

Look at it this way:

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had the power to end modern civilization.

Except, not really, but really.

I think you're tripping up over the underlying premise that power is not unconstrained.

[AE Bravo]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic? :dizzy2:
Same can be said about the US.

All your democracies are belong to us.

[Husar]

Look at it this way:

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had the power to end modern civilization.

Except, not really, but really.

I think you're tripping up over the underlying premise that power is not unconstrained.

I think everybody else is tripping over the difference between theoretical and actual power.
Actual power being the one that is left over after the constraints have been applied.
And for the queen that is not a whole lot if the people will actually revolt if she does something they don't like.
In this case the actual power would lie with the people, no?

As for the US and USSR, their power was far more actual than theoretical as once the nukes would have blown up, no other power could have reverted the effect by a revolt for example. If the queen disbands parliament, gets killed by a popular revolt and parliament just stays in session, what did she actually achieve? If Russia and the US had nuked the planet, that would have been final, that's actual power no one wants to use.

[Greyblades]

We don't have an unelected Monarch who has all these powers to turn the country into a monarchy again or can reign in almost any decision of the elected politicians as PVC described and Greyblades and Pape apparently verified.
Or maybe the queen can't actually do all that in reality and then she is rather powerless in reality, how can both be true?

Britain's monarch is kind of a permanent version of a democratic politician: she's in power because people want her and can do whatever she wants, but if it comes to pass that she pisses enough of her own people she's liable to be removed, violently if need be.

[Montmorency]

So what is power, the reversibility of an effect?

Then power simply does not exist, or else it is infinite. That's not very useful here, unless you're arguing that power is not a useful concept. A linear power certainly isn't a useful concept, since constraints are relational, not to be summed or subtracted.

Another example: the power of the POTUS is similar to the power of the English monarch, it's just that the POTUS is expected by others to wield the power. However, in many ways the power of the POTUS is far more constrained than the power of either the Saudi or the English monarchs. The POTUS has many more relationships to juggle.

[Viking]

No, they didn't. :inquisitive:

Rebels from Benghazi, Misrata, Zintan etc. all fought under the same banner. They were united while they had the common cause of removing Gaddafi.


Double :inquisitive: I can't even begin to imagine a logical process for that notion.

IS just opened a new front in Afghanistan (whether directly or indirectly). I am note sure what you are getting at.


Also a strange comment. One of the biggest arguments from military POVs against the Libyan semi-intervention was that it was such a poorly-planned and organized operation specifically with respect to its scope and goals.

Officially, there might have been ambiguity over the goals of the operation; but unofficially, I can only assume that the most important leaders of the intervention had the goal to remove Gaddafi.


Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism

I didn't.


and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans

They were the ones who started it.


The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I ask again: which islamists? Names of groups and individuals who currently wield significant power, please.

[Montmorency]

Rebels from Benghazi, Misrata, Zintan etc. all fought under the same banner.

Since when did you put so much stock in legal fictions? Do also note that there were rebels outside of the major coastal cities...


IS just opened a new front in Afghanistan (whether directly or indirectly). I am note sure what you are getting at.

What is the relevance here?


but unofficially, I can only assume that the most important leaders of the intervention had the goal to remove Gaddafi.

Unofficially, the goal was whatever you can imagine it to be.

[AE Bravo]

I didn't.
Well yeah not you.

They were the ones who started it.
Not a good argument to justify the intervention. They started it on their turf...

I ask again: which islamists? Names of groups and individuals who currently wield significant power, please.
LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

[Papewaio]

I wouldn't get too worried about different groups under the same banner thrown together to fight what they saw was a greater threat.

Factional differences abound in democratic parties, just look at the Tea Party within the GOP.

External threats to a nation is one of the quickest methods to align internal warring parties unless the aggressor has already aligned with some of the internal groups. The last bit is what has separated the successful colonial powers with ones that failed. However just aligning oneself with internal camps doesn't mean instant win just look at Vietnam and the amount of time territories had to be retaken after the local colonels lost it (again).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

Of the Libyan militias that were actually active during the Civil War I think only the Misrata Brigade has sided with the Islamists, I think they and the Zintan militia were the only fighting over Tripoli Airport.

Recall during the war remarking that the fighters from Misrata seemed to be behind most rebel atrocities, granted those guys spent weeks under siege by government forces but that's no reason to be jerks.

More telling, if we're talking about Libya, was the subsequent scandal when a cadre of around a hundred Libyans came to the UK for training and then six of them committed sexual assault against women and two raped a man. Fair warning - my figures may be a bit off, the overall proportion of offences may be slightly higher or lower.

Anyway, the training program was cancelled because the Libyans were, essentially, deemed not to be civilised enough to be trusted.

[Viking]

Since when did you put so much stock in legal fictions? Do also note that there were rebels outside of the major coastal cities...

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.


What is the relevance here?

Trying to guess what your objections are.


Not a good argument to justify the intervention. They started it on their turf...

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands no matter which side you support.


LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

And where is LIFG et al. now?

[AE Bravo]

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands no matter which side you support.
Nobody should have taken it upon themselves to "secure the defeat of the dictatorship." Regional actors did not unanimously support this intervention nor were the costs worth it. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands either way, which is why the security of Libya comes first.

And where is LIFG et al. now?
Planting their feet in the Arabian Maghreb. Say what you will about Ghaddafi but he was a good security guard of the maghreb and his defeat enabled the network of islamism we see in Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya (along with other African states) today. They were single nastiest opposition to maghreb regimes yet the west risked arming them, intentionally or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils - bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.

[Montmorency]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils

A form of the Parmenidean Fallacy, but more straightforwardly we can just call it begging the question.


bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.

God's a sissy!

[AE Bravo]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils - bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.
Libya now is worse than what Libya was.

One evil had a plan while the other didn't. Qaddafi's jamahiriya was replaced with broken politics and Islamism, almost like how de-Baathification led to isis.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A form of the Parmenidean Fallacy, but more straightforwardly we can just call it begging the question.

God's a sissy!

God loves you even if you don't love him.

Anyway, seems to me that arguing for not intervening in Syria is the Parmenides Fallacy, and one only has to look to Syria to see what would have happened in Libya without intervention, neither side could win the Civil War and neither side would have negotiated or yielded so it would have been a deadlock that slowly destroyed all infrastructure and ground the country into dust.

Did intervening produce the resolution we wanted? No.

Did it produce a better resolution than not intervening? Quite possibly - I incline to thinking that the alternative is Syria, which looks much worse from here.


Libya now is worse than what Libya was.

One evil had a plan while the other didn't. Qaddafi's jamahiriya was replaced with broken politics and Islamism, almost like how de-Baathification led to isis.

Gaddafi wasn't winning - his air force was defecting and so were his government ministers, the two sides were fighting over the oil refineries between Bengazi and Tripoli and eventually those refineries wouls just have been burned down.

Gaddafi had a plan?

You think Assad doesn't?

It's not helping him, and Gaddafi was twice as crazy as Assad to boot.

[AE Bravo]

Not Assad, NATO.

Qaddafi was winning. The violence was on the verge of ending on March 2011 until overseas agents started talking about genocide as a last resort. Islamists play the victims when they're backed into a corner, they had a lot to gain from anarchy.

There is no way you can sit there and say the numbers would have been worse pre-NATO. So ridiculous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not Assad, NATO.

Qaddafi was winning. The violence was on the verge of ending on March 2011 until overseas agents started talking about genocide as a last resort. Islamists play the victims when they're backed into a corner, they had a lot to gain from anarchy.

There is no way you can sit there and say the numbers would have been worse pre-NATO. So ridiculous.

You're delusional.

First off - there were few Islamists in Libya in 2011, the majority, vast majority, of the rebels were ordinary Libyans including members of Gaddafi's government and military, a much broader coalition of his enemies than Assad faces currently where the war has boiled it down to Islamists, the FSA, the Kurds and Assad himself.

Looking back over the timeline I would say that although Gaddafi was on the offensive in mid March he couldn't hold all that territory, every attack seemed to cost him in defections,

Initially Gaddafi had the advantage but even without NATO intervention he was bleeding men, and worse planes. In fact, it may be that "loyalist" forces would have seen a higher rate of defection after March without NATO intervention

I saw you mentioned Tunisia - so I'll cover that briefly by saying Tunisia appears to have sucessfully transitioned to a democracy.

[AE Bravo]

First off - there were few Islamists in Libya in 2011, the majority, vast majority, of the rebels were ordinary Libyans including members of Gaddafi's government and military
The ones giving the army trouble were islamists. by march the islamists didn’t have a choice besides going to egypt but the subsequent intervention confused the entire country and pulled it back into civil war. up to march the casualties were around 1,000. 10x that after qaddafi.

Looking back over the timeline I would say that although Gaddafi was on the offensive in mid March he couldn't hold all that territory, every attack seemed to cost him in defections,
Nonsense, on what basis? That was it, it was over. The issue was disarmament. But the Obama admin had to go ahead and Yemenize Libya like that could possibly go well. Once everyone's strapped you don't have to respect any transition govt.

Initially Gaddafi had the advantage but even without NATO intervention he was bleeding men, and worse planes. In fact, it may be that "loyalist" forces would have seen a higher rate of defection after March without NATO intervention
Oh so now he had the advantage. How am i delusional then? nato intervention fostered violence and promoted growth of armed islamists, either way mercenaries were brought in to take care of it.

I saw you mentioned Tunisia - so I'll cover that briefly by saying Tunisia appears to have sucessfully transitioned to a democracy.
Congrats to tunisia, that doesn’t change what i said about islamist presence in the maghreb.

[Gilrandir]

Back to the immigrants:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-refugee-riot-puts-a-german-town-on-edge/2015/10/01/fa9075bc-65f5-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

[a completely inoffensive name]

No joke. Thread is just not the same without kad. Maybe one day soon he will become a populist politician in his country and we could just post his speeches here as a substitute for him.

[Viking]

Nobody should have taken it upon themselves to "secure the defeat of the dictatorship." Regional actors did not unanimously support this intervention nor were the costs worth it.

First of all, where did the 'Arab spring' start? It was Tunisia, a friend of the West. Then Egypt followed, another friend of the West. Evidently, even if the West had loved Gaddafi, this war could still have happened.

What does this tell us? Gaddafi-style dictatorships can not be assumed to be stable. If Libya gets a Gaddafi 2.0 in a few years, we could have another uprising in Libya in 60 years time. If Gaddafi had won, similar considerations hold: there is a riske of a new violent uprising x years down the line. In addition to this, thanks to plundered arms depots, extremists could compromise Libya's internal security for decades; regardless of outcome.

By making sure that the dictatorship lost, we did in effect try to break this potential cycle by pushing the result towards something democratic. One might say the push was too gentle and that the democratic instutions in Libya should have been given help; like peace-enforcing troops after the war to initially provide the government forceful help if needed, but this comes with its own risks of failure.


Planting their feet in the Arabian Maghreb. Say what you will about Ghaddafi but he was a good security guard of the maghreb and his defeat enabled the network of islamism we see in Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya (along with other African states) today. They were single nastiest opposition to maghreb regimes yet the west risked arming them, intentionally or not.

And how does this relate to statements like this:


All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved.

?

Does it intend to say that the islamists got weapons out of this at all? That wouldn't be a very shocking realisation.

There is no doubt that islamist extremists have gotten better conditions after the war in Libya - but even if Libya had completed a transformation to a peaceful democracy, that would likely still have been the case. Just look to the West and the problem of violent islamism there; yet there is resistance towards things like increasing surveillance (potentially: increasing authoritarianism) that could have protected people against such violence. There is a willingness to trade some security for some liberty.

[AE Bravo]

Evidently, even if the West had loved Gaddafi, this war could still have happened.
No. The west loves Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, those crackdowns were a success to their regimes. See Yemen also, Saleh was booted with a deal. The war could have still happened but with the Libyan regime's freedom in their own land without foreign restrictions and intl denunciation of regime legitimacy.

What does this tell us? Gaddafi-style dictatorships can not be assumed to be stable. If Libya gets a Gaddafi 2.0 in a few years, we could have another uprising in Libya in 60 years time. If Gaddafi had won, similar considerations hold: there is a riske of a new violent uprising x years down the line.
You are using the spring to convince yourself of Gaddafi's supposed unstable governance. In 60 years time you don't know what will happen. Gaddafi was a 70 year old guy and we don't know what his son would have done different. Gaddafi-style dictatorship may not have created an ideal Libya but it didn't break it. Whether you think Libya would have had another uprising 60 years from now or not doesn't matter, because that's the faulty premise and war of choice decision-making that started a civil war Qaddafi tried to prevent in the first place.

By making sure that the dictatorship lost, we did in effect try to break this potential cycle by pushing the result towards something democratic.
Very idealistic. Libya is a huge country with non-Democratic norms, jamahiriya socialism, and generally anti-colonial anti-west sentiment. Unless the invaders were willing to commit to nation-building and the changing of those norms by holding Libya's hands through it they should not have intervened. Since there is no way of doing this, than there is no possible justification for insisting on regime change when the regime offered what it had when it was losing.

There is no doubt that islamist extremists have gotten better conditions after the war in Libya - but even if Libya had completed a transformation to a peaceful democracy, that would likely still have been the case.
The single most powerful force that effectively muzzled and delegitimized these extremists was eliminated. Transformation to a peaceful democracy needed this very regime to pull it off.

[Viking]

No. The west loves Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, those crackdowns were a success to their regimes.

Which can be explained by a lack of momentum for this unrest.


You are using the spring to convince yourself of Gaddafi's supposed unstable governance. In 60 years time you don't know what will happen. Gaddafi was a 70 year old guy and we don't know what his son would have done different. Gaddafi-style dictatorship may not have created an ideal Libya but it didn't break it. Whether you think Libya would have had another uprising 60 years from now or not doesn't matter, because that's the faulty premise and war of choice decision-making that started a civil war Qaddafi tried to prevent in the first place.

We know for a fact that an uprising did happen during Gaddafi's rule. We know for a fact that many other Arab countries with secular authoritarian governments also faced uprisings. We do not know for a fact that Gaddafi would have won the war without outside interference; this is merely a likely outcome.

When we look at history, we also see a repeating pattern of authoritarian governments facing massive uprisings. This is by no means a new phenomenon.


Since there is no way of doing this, than there is no possible justification for insisting on regime change when the regime offered what it had when it was losing.

This is the same regime/dictator that has been implicated in a major terrorist attack against the West. I don't see why any guarantees it provided should be trusted.


The single most powerful force that effectively muzzled and delegitimized these extremists was eliminated. Transformation to a peaceful democracy needed this very regime to pull it off.

Again, as far as I can see, the extremists are only in control of portions of the country. One of the main reasons they are controlling anything at all is because of the split of the country's leadership; which means it is difficult for other countries to help train an army capable of dealing with these extremists.

[AE Bravo]

If you were not willing to explore the regime’s offers than you do not value the lives of Libyans. They were suffering and an opportunity arose to stop the bloodshed. Extending the war and harming more civilians went against what the UN authorization was for.

The regime had one last city to retake, the rebel stronghold. So saying they were “likely” to win is an understatement. The rebels had no defense at the time besides the most basic equipment and training, enough to rebel but not win a war.

Extremist or not the people who captured, tortured, and executed the man were chanting Allahu Akbar while shoving crowbars up his corpse. Everyone involved is a traitor to Libya. Our British expert on everything in the previous page likes to twist and turn on issues like "they were fighting over refineries" and "not all of them were Islamists" but that is hardly the point, and guy has tendency to enjoy arguing about nothings.

Again, as far as I can see, the extremists are only in control of portions of the country.
The fact they are in control of anything is a travesty. Libya needs a strongman to keep them in check and, if I'm not mistaken, 50% of Libya agree.

[Fragony]

Hey who would have thought, internal memo in Germany, these 800.000 'refugees' are probably going to be 8 million once families get united, don't speak German, have zero education. Like most who are already there now. Good job Merkel. At least you have a Nobel-peace price waiting for you

Now they want to seperate christians and muslims, and seperate women from men, as intimidation and rape is, well not the exception. The police can't handle it.

Way to go

[Viking]

If you were not willing to explore the regime’s offers than you do not value the lives of Libyans. They were suffering and an opportunity arose to stop the bloodshed. Extending the war and harming more civilians went against what the UN authorization was for.

Tell that to the actual and would-be prisoners of the Gaddafi regime who were ultimate saved by the intervention. Save some, sacrifice some.

Here's one thing to look at: where were the refugees coming from (http://www.unhcr.org/551128679.html) (2014)?

At page 23, you can see that for 44 industrialised countries summed up, Libya ranked as number 40.

If we had bombed Assad to smithereens early on, Syria might have had much fewer refugees pouring out than it does now - like Libya. Who knows.


The regime had one last city to retake, the rebel stronghold. So saying they were “likely” to win is an understatement. The rebels had no defense at the time besides the most basic equipment and training, enough to rebel but not win a war.

They had RPGs and AKs, plenty to provide tough resistance - like they did in Zawiya. It took the regime several days to recapture a city right next to the capital.

There was not one last city to take, that is blatant misinformation. First, Gaddafi would have to retake Benghazi - the second largest city in the country. He still did not have complete control over Misrata. Beyond Benghazi, he would need to take control over cities like Bayda (the fourth largest city), the infamous Derna and Tobruk. In the east, he'd also need to take control of the Nafusa mountains. In other words, large swathes of territory he'd not only need to take control of, but also successfully hold.


Extremist or not the people who captured, tortured, and executed the man were chanting Allahu Akbar while shoving crowbars up his corpse.

And Mussolini's dead body was hung up for display publicly, allowing people to desecrate the corpse. PETA should totally get involved.


Everyone involved is a traitor to Libya.

Such pathos.


The fact they are in control of anything is a travesty.

Indeed. Just like the Gaddafi regime's existence was a travesty before this.

[Husar]

Here's one thing to look at: where were the refugees coming from (http://www.unhcr.org/551128679.html) (2014)?

At page 23, you can see that for 44 industrialised countries summed up, Libya ranked as number 40.

If we had bombed Assad to smithereens early on, Syria might have had much fewer refugees pouring out than it does now - like Libya. Who knows.

Epic fail, try again.

[AE Bravo]

Viking, I think you are severely misguided.

Here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00126#.VhK3bhNViko

I would be shocked if you already read this. No better source at the moment than intl security when it comes to these things, and everything you have said conflicts with Kuperman's facts. Please just read before passing fail judgement.

[Viking]

Epic fail, try again.

Explain.



Here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00126#.VhK3bhNViko

It's behind a paywall.


and everything you have said conflicts with Kuperman's facts.

Considering that I haven't been stating many non-trivial facts, this seems unlikely.

[AE Bravo]

Oh, my bad. It really is essential reading if you want to talk about Libya, here are some excerpts:

NATO started bombing forces in Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, where they represented no threat to civilians because the residents supported the regime.32
Cites - 32. Praveen Swami, Rosa Prince, and Toby Harnden, “Coalition Forces Strike Sirte; Leader’s Home Town,” Daily Telegraph, March 28, 2011.

Qaddafi’s forces commenced a massive counteroffensive on March 7. Within two days, government troops had retaken Ras Lanuf in the east, the biggest mountain town of Gharyan in the west, and Zawiya near the capital. Just one week later, Qaddafi had recaptured virtually all significantly populated areas west of the rebels’ stronghold of Benghazi (see agure 3). A small part of Misurata remained contested, but the rebels there were doomed because they had no access to supplies, given that Qaddafi now controlled both the sea and land lines of communication to the city.

In the preceding week, the rebels had not put up any real defense; they possessed only the rudimentary equipment and training needed to start a rebellion, not to win a war. They retreated, typically within two days, from each successive town that the army targeted on its eastward march: Ras Lanuf, Brega, and Ajdabiya. Based on this progression, government forces probably would have captured Benghazi by March 20. The remaining small towns farther east along the coast almost surely would have fallen the following week, prompting the rebels to flee to Egypt for refuge. Without NATO intervention, therefore, Libya’s rebellion and civil war—and resulting endangerment of civilians—likely would have ended by late March 2011, less than six weeks after the conflict had started.

There is no reason to believe, however, that a bloodbath would have occurred in Benghazi, considering that Qaddafi had not threatened to attack civilians there and had not perpetrated such violence in any of the other cities that his forces recaptured from rebels (see table 1).

In light of this ongoing instability and insecurity, it is perhaps understand- able that many Libyans are nostalgic for a strong leader such as Qaddafi, who at minimum maintained order and provided basic social services. The country’s national survey after the war, conducted in late December 2011, reported that 54 percent of respondents “strongly agree” the country needs “a (single) strong Libyan leader.”86

the former Libyan leader had evolved into a relatively benign figure during his last decade. He switched from supporting terrorists to providing intelligence against them following the September 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks on the United States. He reduced aid to foreign rebels and instead sponsored peace initiatives, including for the Darfur region of Sudan. He dismantled and surrendered his weapons of mass destruction program after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, NATO intervention against Qaddafi after he had voluntarily disarmed is likely to hinder future nonproliferation efforts elsewhere. Accordingly, it is difficult to identify any obvious benefit for the region or beyond from NATO’s intervention in Libya.

Also, it's worth noting that black Libyans weren't systematically displaced and imprisoned under Qaddafi. Racists took over the country and looted their homes, treating blacks like refugees in their own country. These "mercenaries" of Qaddafi were Libyans fighting for Libya and defending its stability, they voluntarily sided with him. Haftar was a military commander in the 80s but lived in the US until he saw that NATO was willing to help rebels.

This is not what Libyans fought for and their revolution was ruined for the actual rebels, the good Libyans who wanted non-violent change. NATO created a field where militias control entire cities, this fragmented the country and there's no coming back from that any time soon.

[Husar]

Explain.

You posted a list with the country of origin of the refugees in order to show that the civil war in Libya did not allow for more refugees to come to Europe as very few of them are from Libya. That may well be true, but it misses the point that a lot of the boats start from Libya due to the lack of law and order there. I don't think anyone was claiming that the boats are full of Libyans, it's more like a lot of people from all over Africa go there to enter the boats because it is very unlikely that they will be stopped there. Therefore the number of Libyans arriving here is pretty irrelevant. There would be far fewer sub-saharan Africans in Europe today if Gaddafi and his regime still topped them from entering boats willy nilly all over the Libyan coast. The amount of Libyans who come to Europe says nothing much about this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I hear Germany is expecting 1.5 million Asylum applications this year.

Remember those back of the envelop calculations I did a few pages back?

Yeah... told you so.

[Husar]

So I hear Germany is expecting 1.5 million Asylum applications this year.

Remember those back of the envelop calculations I did a few pages back?

Yeah... told you so.

Emperor Merkel will distribute them around the EU.
Some of them may leave the internment camps themselves when they hear how long it will take until they can get anywhere with this.
The German government promised faster processes from start to end, but the way they delivered this was by postponing the start of the processes. You know, people will figure out that they have to live in a hall full of people for three years before their application process begin, will not be allowed to work legally and will have to beg the government for food every week. This will then lead to problems and I wouldn't be surprised if one million of them then force their way onto ferries to Britain or something like that. We will see how it goes on next years, will we get 3 million more or will they go directly to Sweden and the Netherlands because they heard the conditions in Germany are horrible?

Our next chancellor may then be the one who promises to build a fence around Europe and make Assad pay for it. If he promises to make the Saudis pay for it, I'll vote for him, too.

[Fragony]

Conditions aren't any better here, we only had a few thousands so far but there are no homes for them. The Netherlands are already too densily populated as it is, takes years before you can get a house if you can't buy.

[Gilrandir]

You know, people will figure out that they have to live in a hall full of people for three years before their application process begin, will not be allowed to work legally and will have to beg the government for food every week.

And what had they expected? They will have all they are supposed to: SAFE shelter and FREE food UNTIL THE SITUATION AT HOME ALLOWS THEM TO RETURN. These are all refugees can hope for. If they clamor for other benefits - well, here they miraculously turn into immigrants. And immigrants shouldn't have anything for free. So they have to opt for the choice - to stay refugees and enjoy hospitality of the gracious Europeans or to become immigrants and face the reality of modern capitalism.



This will then lead to problems and I wouldn't be surprised if one million of them then force their way onto ferries to Britain or something like that.


Judging from the rhetorics of the British government and seeing the way the tunnel posse is fended off, I strongly doubt they will find a warmer welcome on the Albion.

[Husar]

And what had they expected? They will have all they are supposed to: SAFE shelter and FREE food UNTIL THE SITUATION AT HOME ALLOWS THEM TO RETURN. These are all refugees can hope for. If they clamor for other benefits - well, here they miraculously turn into immigrants. And immigrants shouldn't have anything for free. So they have to opt for the choice - to stay refugees and enjoy hospitality of the gracious Europeans or to become immigrants and face the reality of modern capitalism.

I was talking about the standard ASYLUM SEEKER process, they have not turned into immigrants in Germany. It's just that our system is not fast enough for so many people and they are not allowed to do much until after their asylum has been granted. Of course it can also not be granted, in which case they will be sent back. They are only allowed to face the realities of modern capitalism once they have been granted residence in some way, the government does not allow anyone without a residence permit to legally work in Germany. Of course both the asylum seekers as well as the ones who try to avoid registration and enter illegally can try to work illegally, but some of those may easily end up in criminal circles, both as victims and as perpetrators. I'm just not sure what you are talking about regarding asylum seekers vs immigrants since the application for asylum in Germany is usually not the nicest process and when you succeed you are usually subject to the same capitalism as an immigrant unless you want to live relatively miserable.


Judging from the rhetorics of the British government and seeing the way the tunnel posse is fended off, I strongly doubt they will find a warmer welcome on the Albion.

So do I, but will it stop them?

[Viking]

The only fact (not opinion) that could be said to be in disagreement with what I've said is this, about Zawiya:


Qaddafi’s forces commenced a massive counteroffensive on March 7. Within two days, government troops had retaken Ras Lanuf in the east, the biggest mountain town of Gharyan in the west, and Zawiya near the capital.

Though as can bee seen in other sources (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12652613), regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:


Libyan state television said the town had been retaken by pro-Gaddafi forces, although later reports spoke of "pockets of resistance".

In other words, Zawiyah took several days to recapture.

Ras Lanuf and Brega were previously captured by the rebels (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/03/2011310131427537949.html):


Until now, armed but untrained fighters had managed to easily overthrow military garrisons in town after town: first Ajdabiya, then Brega, and finally Ras Lanuf, which no one expected would fall easily.

So the regime lost Ajdabiya, Brega and Ras Lanuf quickly - and the rebels lost them quickly, too. There was symmetry.


You posted a list with the country of origin of the refugees in order to show that the civil war in Libya did not allow for more refugees to come to Europe as very few of them are from Libya.

No, the point is that Syria is the number one producer of refugees, while Libya produces very few. People leaving through Libya would have the same reasons for leaving their home country without the war in Libya (with the possible exception of Mali, who ranks as number 16 - but those numbers might (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e484e66.html) have dropped for this year). Evidently, Libyans feel more confident in staying in their home country than citizens of many other countries - including countries without war.



[...] the good Libyans who wanted non-violent change

A trivially false dichotomy.

[AE Bravo]

Here, all the things you said wrong:

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net.
This comes off as you saying that the regime putting down the rebels is a bad outcome for Libya, and more innocent lives would be at stake.

One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.
Weapons and air support as well as NATO countries (with French taking the lead) formally recognizing the rebels as the representatives of Libya gained them the advantage over the regime.

Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory
No reason to imagine since he had one last city to take over and the rebels lost with minimal civilian casualties on the regime's part. No evidence of indiscriminate killing under Qaddafi's regime.

perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.
Gulf states would not have had the political authority to intervene without a greenlight from NATO countries. Recognition of rebels from the west and NATO's political objective to OVERTHROW QADDAFI made Qatar confident about funding Islamists and fulfilling this mission by any means.

The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power
The objective in and of itself was a failure. Responsibility to protect, political imprudence, and no long-term commitment to maintain national security after outright regime change makes it a model for failure.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.
False.

So...


Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:
IIRC, the bbc is the only news agency in the world that apologized for its dishonest coverage of Libya. Even in spite of this I wouldn't take bbc's info over Kuperman's analysis.

In other words, Zawiyah took several days to recapture.

Ras Lanuf and Brega were previously captured by the rebels:
Aljazeera is owned by Qatar, the second main culprit in Libya's disaster.

So the regime lost Ajdabiya, Brega and Ras Lanuf quickly - and the rebels lost them quickly, too. There was symmetry.
Right up until Qaddafi won and weapons were put down. The intervention began shortly after to interrupt the restoration of order across the country. Rebels were on their way to Egypt until military intervention was announced.

A trivially false dichotomy.
It's as simple as it gets and it's true.

[Husar]

No, the point is that Syria is the number one producer of refugees, while Libya produces very few. People leaving through Libya would have the same reasons for leaving their home country without the war in Libya (with the possible exception of Mali, who ranks as number 16 - but those numbers might (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e484e66.html) have dropped for this year). Evidently, Libyans feel more confident in staying in their home country than citizens of many other countries - including countries without war.

Still missing the point I see. It is much harder for a lot of people to even come to Europe without any border patrols or law and order in northern African states. That they may have the same reasons to leave the country is irrelevant if they cannot get into the Mediterranean because Libyan security forces don't let them. Yes, there are other ways, but those are not simple either, but a wide open Libya where lots of traffickers gather with little resistance is.

[Fragony]

Looks like there is no more patience for Merkel's messias-complex.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4578486.ece

I aprove even if it is really harsh and no doubt people who gambled everything will be really screwed, but they should have stayed at home. If you disaprove and my stance disgusts that's fine I won't take it personally.

[Greyblades]

This was inevitable; there's not enough housing or jobs to support the entirety of our own populations let alone this massive influx. It sucks, but there's not any alternative that wouldn't cripple the EU financially.

In other news, one of Kadagar's suggestions might be coming true:
The EU is beginning a new operation in the southern Mediterranean to intercept boats smuggling migrants. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34461503)

[Husar]

It is time to stop the taboos, in a democratic society it has to be allowed to think about the napalm solution.

[Greyblades]

There's a Zyklon B joke in there but for the life of me I cant think of one.

[InsaneApache]

Are they still evicting German nationals so they can house migrants?

As I keep saying, we are governed by sociopaths.

[Fragony]

Are they still evicting German nationals so they can house migrants?

As I keep saying, we are governed by sociopaths.

They still are, in, naturally, Sweden as well. Questionable here so far the demands to give up property aren't all that apreciated. Nodody want's to live Mermel's dream, her biolgical father was better at that, at least Adolf Hitler had manners.

[Gilrandir]

I'm just not sure what you are talking about regarding asylum seekers vs immigrants since the application for asylum in Germany is usually not the nicest process and when you succeed you are usually subject to the same capitalism as an immigrant unless you want to live relatively miserable.


While they are still refugees/asylum seekers they are given everything for free. When they have been accepted as "new Germans" the torrent of charity lavished on them stops and they will have to fend for themselves in the cruel capitalist world of joblessness, high rent, costly medical care and so on. So on balance, who knows, perhaps, they are better off now.



So do I, but will it stop them?
Hitherto they are being stopped by the French and probably British police sealing both ends of the Tunnel. We'll see when they come up with the idea of building/hiring boats or something.

[Husar]

Are they still evicting German nationals so they can house migrants?

As I keep saying, we are governed by sociopaths.

They expect about 1 million Germans to freeze to death this winter, but they're mostly lower class and alcoholics, the Syrians are worth more to the industry.


While they are still refugees/asylum seekers they are given everything for free. When they have been accepted as "new Germans" the torrent of charity lavished on them stops and they will have to fend for themselves in the cruel capitalist world of joblessness, high rent, costly medical care and so on. So on balance, who knows, perhaps, they are better off now.

Exactly, you show great knowledge of how Germany works. :rolleyes:


Hitherto they are being stopped by the French and probably British police sealing both ends of the Tunnel. We'll see when they come up with the idea of building/hiring boats or something.

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

[Pannonian]

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

Do you mean the one at Kiel, or the one at Scapa Flow?

[Crandar]

Do you mean the one at Kiel, or the one at Scapa Flow?
They're both at Scapa Flow, now.

[Husar]

Do you mean the one at Kiel, or the one at Scapa Flow?

The one at Kiel or wherever it currently is. Should be sufficient to get the people to the UK before the RN can stop them all.

[Viking]

This comes off as you saying that the regime putting down the rebels is a bad outcome for Libya, and more innocent lives would be at stake.

It's a bad outcome for those innocent people who end up arrested, tortured and possibly killed by the security services - things that happen in closed dictatorships.


Weapons and air support as well as NATO countries (with French taking the lead) formally recognizing the rebels as the representatives of Libya gained them the advantage over the regime.

The arming was the point, because you said NATO effectively armed islamists. The initial uprising, long before NATO's intervention, provided plenty of weapons for anyone to loot.


No reason to imagine since he had one last city to take over

He didn't, just as your source points out. Your source just claims that it "surely" would be easy to recapture them without actually going into much detail for why (at least not in the quotes you provided).


No evidence of indiscriminate killing under Qaddafi's regime.

Yeah, none at all (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-15058755).


Gulf states would not have had the political authority to intervene without a greenlight from NATO countries. Recognition of rebels from the west and NATO's political objective to OVERTHROW QADDAFI made Qatar confident about funding Islamists and fulfilling this mission by any means.

Very unlikely - look to Syria and Yemen. How much of a guarantee does Qatar have that their side in Syria is going to win? None at all, really.


The objective in and of itself was a failure.

We disagree on what the primary objective was.


False.

Misrata and Zintani rebels didn't shoot at each other, they shot at Gaddafi's troops. Infighting came later when there was no enemy left to unite against.


IIRC, the bbc is the only news agency in the world that apologized for its dishonest coverage of Libya. Even in spite of this I wouldn't take bbc's info over Kuperman's analysis.

Aljazeera is owned by Qatar, the second main culprit in Libya's disaster.

I don't think you followed this war closely as it unfolded. This is fairly basic knowledge about what happened - any news source will tell you a similar story.


Rebels were on their way to Egypt until military intervention was announced.

No, they even fielded their fighter jet (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12794589) in the defence of Benghazi (and apparently shot it down themselves).


It's as simple as it gets and it's true.

"all X are bad" is kindergarten-level of debate.


Still missing the point I see. It is much harder for a lot of people to even come to Europe without any border patrols or law and order in northern African states. That they may have the same reasons to leave the country is irrelevant if they cannot get into the Mediterranean because Libyan security forces don't let them. Yes, there are other ways, but those are not simple either, but a wide open Libya where lots of traffickers gather with little resistance is.

No, the point is not the number of migrants arriving in Europe, but where they come from. If a country has many people emigrating, that tells you something about the current state of the country - at least relative to other countries.

Blaming the migrant crisis on NATO's intervention doesn't make much sense, because then either

a) you believe that the migrants don't really need to leave their home countries; which in turn implies that they are being reckless in doing so anyway. Reckless adults should take responsibility for their own recklessness

b) you believe that the migrants really should leave their home countries; in which case it would be a good thing that NATO's intervention made it easier for them to do so

[Gilrandir]

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

Traditionally, their cockleboats are to be as unsafe as they can help. In that case the pity will conquer and the British will escort them to Buckingham palace and allow to camp in Hyde Park. Otherwise they will rush en masse in the direction of Hastings and who knows what may follow then - coronation of Raheem the Conqueror?

[AE Bravo]

It's a bad outcome for those innocent people who end up arrested, tortured and possibly killed by the security services - things that happen in closed dictatorships.
And somehow this is worse than +10,000 people getting killed and +250,000 leaving their own country?

The arming was the point, because you said NATO effectively armed islamists. The initial uprising, long before NATO's intervention, provided plenty of weapons for anyone to loot.
They were not enough to stop the regime. You underestimate the initial power of this regime, the defense spending/security sector of Libya was strong. Those weapons didn’t come close to Qaddafi’s or NATO's arsenal.

Yeah, none at all.
During the uprising, no signs of indiscriminate killing. The rebels you hate less than the regime have killed way more civilians.

Very unlikely - look to Syria and Yemen. How much of a guarantee does Qatar have that their side in Syria is going to win? None at all, really.
You miss the point. It’s not about guarantee but whether their western patron is okay with them funding these groups to overthrow Assad. Since regime change was a legit objective, zealously funding Islamists also became legit.

We disagree on what the primary objective was.
We disagree that nato’s goal and reason for intervening was the removal of Qaddafi?

No, they even fielded their fighter jet in the defence of Benghazi (and apparently shot it down themselves).
This was nowhere near enough to stopping the counteroffensive on the city. Saif al Islam was on tv five days after that was reported saying it will all be over in a couple of days. Egypt was the only refuge and the rebels in the east had already begun retreating there. There was nowhere to go for the rebels.

More excerpts from what I linked to before. NATO is to blame friend, there's really no way around it:
When the UN authorized the intervention on March 17, 2011, and NATO started bombing two days later, Libyan government forces quickly halted their eastward offensive. As a result, Benghazi was not retaken by the government, the rebels did not flee to Egypt, and the war did not end in late March. Instead, the rebels in Benghazi reversed their retreat and launched a second westward offensive. Within barely a week, benefiting from NATO bombing of government forces, the rebels recaptured Brega and Ras Lanuf. In so doing, however, the ragtag rebels outran their supply lines, so the government again was able to retake the cities two days later. Over the next four months, such cities on the central coast changed hands several more times as the region became a primary theater of the war. Repeatedly, NATO would bomb Libyan forces, enabling the rebels to advance on populated areas, until the government counterattacked—with each round of combat inflicting casualties on both fighters and noncombatants.

In Misurata, too, intervention prolonged and escalated the fighting. On March 19, government forces were just retaking the city’s center from the re- bels who, without resupply routes, were doomed to fall within days, roughly one month after the fighting had started there. But when NATO attacked both the government’s ground forces near the city and its naval vessels off the coast, the rebels gained breathing room and reopened their supply lines. As a result, fighting in Misurata continued for another four months until the rebels eventually prevailed in late July, by which time the city’s death toll had grown substantially, as detailed below.

In Libya’s western mountains, the rebellion also revived, fostered by an in- flux of weapons and trainers from NATO member states. Accordingly, by late August 2011, rebels had converged on Tripoli in a pincer from east and west. Not surprisingly, government forces staged a fierce defense of the capital—magnifying severalfold the death toll of soldiers, rebels, and civilians in an area that had been quiescent during the preceding ave months

The rebels also had strong reason to believe that such intervention would be forthcoming. As early as February 22, 2011, former U.K. Foreign Minister Lord David Owen, while speaking to Al Jazeera, called for a no-fly zone.62 On March 2, the rebels’ military commander spoke by telephone to Britain’s foreign secretary “about planning for a No-Fly Zone,” according to the U.K. government.63 The next day, March 3, British Special Forces and intelligence agents clandestinely attempted to meet with rebels in eastern Libya.64 On March 5, France formally praised the rebels’ establishment of the National Transitional Council. Just ave days later, France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, agreed to recognize the rebel council as Libya’s legitimate government during a meeting at his office with the rebels’ top diplomat, Mahmoud Jibril.65 This was remarkable considering that the rebellion was barely three weeks old and the rebels already had lost most of their initial territorial gains. On the same day, March 10, while the rebels were in abject retreat, their political leader appeared on CNN to plead again desperately for a no-fly zone: “It has to be immediate action.”

This evidence demonstrates that, by the third week of the rebellion (if not sooner), the strategy of the rebels depended on forthcoming NATO intervention—which they had grounds to expect. Indeed, the early and significant signals of support from NATO countries help explain why the otherwise feeble rebels continued fighting the government’s vastly superior forces.

[AE Bravo]

Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:
They actually retook it March 9. Like I said bbc were the only ones that apologized for their dishonest coverage of the war, which pretty much every western outlet is guilty of but didn't care to correct themselves.

[Viking]

And somehow this is worse than +10,000 people getting killed and +250,000 leaving their own country?

Worse? What's worse: you (presumed innocent) getting mowed down by a bulldozer, or 10 other innocent people instead? Is either of the two cases worse than the other? Worse with respect to what?


Those weapons didn’t come close to Qaddafi’s or NATO's arsenal.

Neither did the weapons outsiders provided.


During the uprising, no signs of indiscriminate killing.

Hard to verify, either way - one of many problems with closed countries.


The rebels you hate less than the regime have killed way more civilians.

It's highly probable that the allies during WWII many places killed more civilians than the Nazis by ordinary bombing raids and fighting; but such statistics are not inherently meaningful for comparisons for what's 'worse' - context is key.


You miss the point. It’s not about guarantee but whether their western patron is okay with them funding these groups to overthrow Assad. Since regime change was a legit objective, zealously funding Islamists also became legit.

And what do you base this on? Why shouldn't the Gulf states fund the rebels, anyway?


We disagree that nato’s goal and reason for intervening was the removal of Qaddafi?

Never mind, we disagree that the objective itself was a failure.


This was nowhere near enough to stopping the counteroffensive on the city. Saif al Islam was on tv five days after that was reported saying it will all be over in a couple of days. Egypt was the only refuge and the rebels in the east had already begun retreating there. There was nowhere to go for the rebels.

Who cares what Saif said. Facts are there were several cities beyond Benghazi. Benghazi itself could not be expected to fall within a day or two ( if it at all would fall), which would provide extra time to plan any defence for remaining cities.


NATO is to blame friend, there's really no way around it:

Blame for what, exactly? If the Libyan militias wanted prosperity for their country, they could move towards it rather swiftly - NATO is not holding them back.


They actually retook it March 9. Like I said bbc were the only ones that apologized for their dishonest coverage of the war, which pretty much every western outlet is guilty of but didn't care to correct themselves.

Link please for the BBC statement. Chances are it has absolutely nothing to do with when the fighting for Zawiya first began (the end date is not in dispute).

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, none at all (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-15058755).

You seem to have difficulties understanding the difference between evidence and a hypothesis.

Nothing of that is proven (even today, and the article is from 2011). It is based on a testimony of a (brace yourself) one, single inmate who admitted he didn't see a single man being shot.

Then a mass grave was found, which was supposed to hold the remains of those 1270 people (the bones showed in the picture). DNA testing showed it was animal bones.


Blaming the migrant crisis on NATO's intervention doesn't make much sense, because then either

a) you believe that the migrants don't really need to leave their home countries; which in turn implies that they are being reckless in doing so anyway. Reckless adults should take responsibility for their own recklessness

b) you believe that the migrants really should leave their home countries; in which case it would be a good thing that NATO's intervention made it easier for them to do so

This makes no sense whatsoever.

[Viking]

You seem to have difficulties understanding the difference between evidence and a hypothesis.

Nothing of that is proven (even today, and the article is from 2011). It is based on a testimony of a (brace yourself) one, single inmate who admitted he didn't see a single man being shot.

Then a mass grave was found, which was supposed to hold the remains of those 1270 people (the bones showed in the picture). DNA testing showed it was animal bones.

The topic was not Abu Salim, but indiscriminate killing by the regime. You can find two people in that article who do not know where one of their relatives ended up - relatives who were imprisoned. Chances are that they were killed during imprisonment. And yes, those are pieces of evidence, until invalidated.


This makes no sense whatsoever.

Explain yourself.

[Sarmatian]

The topic was not Abu Salim, but indiscriminate killing by the regime. You can find two people in that article who do not know where one of their relatives ended up - relatives who were imprisoned. Chances are that they were killed during imprisonment. And yes, those are pieces of evidence, until invalidated.

No one said it was Disneyland, but those were not indiscriminate killings.

For future reference,

Indiscriminate killings - killing people without regard who they are, what they do, their age, sex, ethnicity, religion, physical appearance...
Killing political opponents is not indiscriminate.

Something has been proved when a relevant impartial authority makes that decision based on all available evidence. Evidence itself is neutral. So far, only thing that has been proved is that prisoners were fed beef.


Explain yourself.

I can't. That's why I said it makes no sense.

[Viking]

No one said it was Disneyland, but those were not indiscriminate killings.

For future reference,

Indiscriminate killings - killing people without regard who they are, what they do, their age, sex, ethnicity, religion, physical appearance...
Killing political opponents is not indiscriminate.

This makes assumptions about the victims that might not be correct. Ultimately, no action is 100% indiscriminate with regards to its victims (most killers have people they do not want to kill). If the regime casts the net sufficiently wide when trying to catch 'political opponents', their approach can be said to be indiscriminate.

Ultimately, though, the point is that people who have done nothing wrong, and who might not in any way have expected that the regime would imprison them, might end up dead thanks to the security services.


Something has been proved when a relevant impartial authority makes that decision based on all available evidence. Evidence itself is neutral. So far, only thing that has been proved is that prisoners were fed beef.

Things don't ever get proved; all one ever have is evidence that point in certain directions.


I can't. That's why I said it makes no sense.

What a pity.

[Fragony]

Not something I came up with, it's called diffusion of responsibity, everbody is just as guilty or innocent, you have a better chance of being saved when you are in trouble and only 4 people see it, if 200 people see it you are more likely to be screwed as nobody feels responsble. If everybody kills it isn't your responsebility either. It's a social mechanism that doesn't need defence.

[Montmorency]

Things don't ever get proved; all one ever have is evidence that point in certain directions.

To point anywhere at all, evidence must have some prior grounding. :worried:

[Viking]

To point anywhere at all, evidence must have some prior grounding. :worried:

There's no dichotomy here, but a scale on which evidence range from poor/weak to good/strong. I don't possess any good evidence (not that I have searched thoroughly), but I dispute that there is no evidence at all.

[Montmorency]

No, it's even worse - I was making an abstruse philosophical point out of radical scepticism.

Carry on.

[CrossLOPER]

Things don't ever get proved; all one ever have is evidence that point in certain directions.
So, none of what you said actually matters?

[Viking]

No, it is to say that we're dealing with probabilities rather than a proven/not proven dichotomy. In general.

[AE Bravo]

Worse? What's worse: you (presumed innocent) getting mowed down by a bulldozer, or 10 other innocent people instead? Is either of the two cases worse than the other? Worse with respect to what?
With respect to the number of innocent lives, with respect to the stability of the country, with respect to the basic social services destroyed for nothing.

Hard to verify, either way - one of many problems with closed countries.
It would not have been in the regime's best interest to target civilians. Misrata, Zawiya, Zuwara, Ajdabiya - no bloodbaths when retaken and those were the ones that were actually retaken by the government.

Neither did the weapons outsiders provided.
Air support and crippling the regime certainly did.

And what do you base this on? Why shouldn't the Gulf states fund the rebels, anyway?
Because they lack that sovereignty. It is only because of Saudi Arabia and USA's aligned interests in the region that makes the funding of Islamists a common foreign policy initiative.

Blame for what, exactly? If the Libyan militias wanted prosperity for their country, they could move towards it rather swiftly - NATO is not holding them back.
Entrusting these militias to pull the country back together after bombing the hell out of it and kicking the regime that held it together for decades aside is the stupidity here. NATO shouldn't have done anything.

This:

Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:
Is enough to see through how the coverage of the war as it unfolded is propoganda. Same goes for Syria.