IMMIGRATION thread

[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...205_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 (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 (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/...6#.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/...6#.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?