Jump to content

European take on the Syrian crisis?


itsme

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And on that bombshell... Ozi this time, kills another thread.  I'll ignore you from here on out and your pathetic attempts to goad me into a reaction that discusses anything other than the issue. I have not insulted you, somebody disagreeing with you, although it is obviously hurting your feelings, is not insult. Start a thread on, "Why I hate Maturin 'coz he hurts my fweelings all of the twime. I wish he wouldn't challenge the fantasy ideas I have," or some other bollocks, as you're obviously struggling with this particular topic.

All I asked you to do was to prove the fantastical assertions that you're making, do that and salvage a bit of credibility for yourself man. I'm not going to read things for you. If there is something in this article, quote it and link it here. Easy-peasy.

Plus - this article is from 2009 apparently! God damn you! It insults me that you expect me to read an article that is out of date, doesn't include current data, current trends or current issues (even though my report did).  You simply pick and choose when you will follow your own arbitrary rules etc, etc, more personal bullshit, yawn.

The point of the article in The Telegraph is it provides facts that prove there was a muslim problem in Europe in 2009, the problem you claim doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big danger to Israel is Iran

The big danger to the world is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

These 2 states are locked in battle and I think we're in danger of supporting the wrong side.

The wars in Syria and Yemen (and to a lesser extent Iraq) are about the power struggle between these 2.

Iran backs Asad, the Palestinians, the Houthi in the Yemen and are in a strange alliance with the Kurds.

Saudi backs the Muslim Brotherhood eveywhere until they lose like in Egypt but appears at the very least neutral as far as Israel/Palestine and ISIS (which they helped fund) is concerned.

What Saudi and more recently Qatar do is to expect the extreme Wahhabi version of Islam around the world through it's funding of mosques and their attached schools.

We have seen these ideology at work in Tunisia which provides several 1000 ISIS fighters despite being one of the more Westernised Muslim countries. There schools are also at work in the far eeast stirring up trouble there, but it is most famously in Pakistan where they do the most damage. Now a high precentage of mosques are in England are funded by this strain of religion. I wanted to know how thi had happened since the Pakastanis are not Arabs and shouldn't share the culture. A lot of the Muslims in England originate from a small area of Pakistan which provided soldiers during the World Wars. I discovered that there had an extreme Indian cleric whose teaching became popular in that are of Pakistan and the Saudi funded schools leapt on this opportunity. In Germany, for instance, the Muslim population is Turkish and Kurdish, in France, it is North African where these views are not popular but the population in England is more vulnerable to the conversion to extremism. Now there is an argument that these extreme Muslims tried to take over schools in the West Midlands and there was some evidence that that was happening. For instance at one of the schools the boys were being told by teachers that they must not have a girlfriend and have minimal contact with the opposite sex in school or outside the gates. Clearly this is not UK education policy but an effort to differentiate themselves from the rest of the sytem which funds them. They said they were not teaching their pupils to have violent extremist views but there are other types of extremism such as attitudes to woman totally at odds with the normal standards of Western society.

So first Muslims are not an homogeneous bunch and very few provide any threat, just like the threat posed by extremists of any religion or any political hue, and the situation is very different across Europe.   

Also on the subject of foreign births the biggest immigration to the UK has come from Poland and you can actually buy Polish newspapers in the local shop.

On the refugee crisis it is right to take desperate people in and a lot of Syrians have become desperate. However The Tory Party pander to the far right UKIP and ahve basically declared the refugees an S.E.P. (somebody else's problem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just skimmed through this entire thread and feel I want to put in my two cents.  First off Maturin, as somebody who was deployed to Iraq with the American military, Saddam did have WMD's. I'll give you one thing he wasn't proven to have nuclear weapons, but as of the definition a WMD is weapon of mass destruction. Saddam had chemical weapons that he shipped to Assad when he got reports we were coming for him. This is where Assad got his chemical weapons.  Second, ISIS was born from the Syrian rebels. ISIS started in Syria and took over large portions of Iraq after obama pulled out our military.  Yes they didn't renew our status of forces agreement, but it isn't the first time Iraq didn't renew it. It wasn't renewed right before I deployed but you didn't hear anything about it because Bush said Fuck You if we aren't there this is what is going to happen so we are staying.  Guess what, they renewed it.  We didn't go there for Iraqi oil.  We actually have more oil here in the U.S. then Iraq does. We went there to fix our mistake.  The U.S. actually put Saddam in power to keep Iran at bay in '79. Iran was backed and still is backed by Russia.  this was at a crucial time during the Cold War and we did everything we could to counter Russia.  we actually still do most of the time. 

As for the refugee problem. If they really wanted to stay and fix their own damn countries they could.  But, this is all apart of their plan for a world wide caliphate.  There are just as many military age males that are seeking "refugee" status as women and children.  The reports are scattered, but some are saying one out of every 1000 refugees is an ISIS militant.  We are talking millions of refugees, so do the math.  It took 11 muzzy extremist to kill 3000 people in one morning. what do you think 100 would do to your country?  I say they stay and fix their own damn country. They want us to cuddle them give them free shit and then kill us.  Fuck them. I live 20 miles from a town that took in "refugees" from Sudan, now the FBI has given my military unit a report that we are no longer supposed to wear a uniforms to and from duty because of the threat of ISIS in Denver to a Boku Haram cell in the town 20 miles from my house.  These are supposed to be "refugees".  Now our great commander in chief wants to take in more than 10,000.  He can go fuck himself with a spiked pole.  These Sudanese actually take shits in the middle of the isle at the Wal-Mart I used to go to. Just pull up their burkas and take a shit.  These muzzies  do not  care for mine or your culture.  I am all for helping people when they help themselves, but these jackasses think we owe them something. I refuse to help someone who won't try to help themselves.

fuck them if they don't like their own country they need to fix it, and not try to change my country to soot their needs.

It's good to see you JoJo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tiny point but "Al Qaeda in Iraq" were the genesis of ISIL with quite a few ex Iraqi army commanders (who don't necessarily share the views of their paymasters) and merely seized upon the Saudi sponsored attempted Arab Spring revolution in Syria. They were killing 1000s before Obama was in power.

WMD - I agree with you on that but they were certainly no threat to the West and Asad's been using them without punishment.

I have had my say on this subject, but you wanted to know a European viewpoint not an American one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be an observation by an old fart, but, remember being told you can't own a car or firearm until you are old enough and responsible enough to use it properly? There is a parrallel here. The Persions had some some of the most beautiful architecture anywhere. They were as advanced -or in some cases more advanced- as the west and east in math, science, and medicine. However, the western church held us back until it started fragmenting into various protestant sects forcing it to eventually grow up. At that point their thinkers found the western society more conducive to forward thinking and that is pretty much where the muslim society stagnated. Going forward 300 years or so, our technology has grown so fast it is starting to outpace our own level of maturity. The middle eastern techno society only grew where it was exposed to the west but their social maturity did not. It stayed where we left them 300 years back. They had no resources we needed since we no longer needed access to their trade routes...that is until we found oil.

    They were yanked into the 20th century and without giving them a chance to grow up and gave them access to tools  - and weapons- their society was not mature enough or responsible enough to possess  much less use; and all the money they could ever want. Now like a spoiled brat, they think they have every right to everything we have and the arrogance of their religion to use our tech against us. They are trashing the house and we are patting them on the head and telling them we will buy them a toy if they behave. We need to be taking them out to the wood pile thrashing them to within an inch their lives for their behavior and then grounding them until they learn the proper way to act. Of course we have a few of our leaders who need the same treatment.

    Like the Prime Directive in Star Trek we need to consider who gets our technology...period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be an observation by an old fart, but, remember being told you can't own a car or firearm until you are old enough and responsible enough to use it properly? There is a parrallel here. The Persions had some some of the most beautiful architecture anywhere. They were as advanced -or in some cases more advanced- as the west and east in math, science, and medicine. However, the western church held us back until it started fragmenting into various protestant sects forcing it to eventually grow up. At that point their thinkers found the western society more conducive to forward thinking and that is pretty much where the muslim society stagnated. Going forward 300 years or so, our technology has grown so fast it is starting to outpace our own level of maturity. The middle eastern techno society only grew where it was exposed to the west but their social maturity did not. It stayed where we left them 300 years back. They had no resources we needed since we no longer needed access to their trade routes...that is until we found oil.

    They were yanked into the 20th century and without giving them a chance to grow up and gave them access to tools  - and weapons- their society was not mature enough or responsible enough to possess  much less use; and all the money they could ever want. Now like a spoiled brat, they think they have every right to everything we have and the arrogance of their religion to use our tech against us. They are trashing the house and we are patting them on the head and telling them we will buy them a toy if they behave. We need to be taking them out to the wood pile thrashing them to within an inch their lives for their behavior and then grounding them until they learn the proper way to act. Of course we have a few of our leaders who need the same treatment.

    Like the Prime Directive in Star Trek we need to consider who gets our technology...period.

learn_to_shoot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States is not very old. Terrorism and war in the Middle East have been a way of life for thousands of years. It will be that way long after the United States is gone.

Exactly. I know quite a few people who blame the US for every problem in the world! Part of the problem is that simce US decided to come out of its isolationist policy at the start of WWII it is inevitably going to get involved around the world whereas other countries do absolutely nothing and say "It's nothing to do with me mate." US was the only country capable of stopping the march of communism post WWII so found itself having to make difficult decisions that no other country had to make. Sometimes the US got it wrong but so would any other country in its place.

Regarding the Middle East specifically not only do you have the existence of Israel for which maybe the consequences were not fully thought through but 1948 was a different world but also you may have noticed that the Sunnis and Shiites do not care for each other. This would be no different from Protestant v Catholic in Europe over 100s of years which has caused many conflicts. The added factor is oil wealth which has allowed Saudi once it united its tribes to spread one of its forms of Isalm around the world - a form which is intolerant first of the Shiites, then of everybody else and finally the other Sunnis who are not quite religious enough. None of that is the US's fault.

I am not underestimating the CIA's capability of doing deals with the wrong people but without the benefit of hindsight it difficult to tell who the right people are and what are the consequences. No other country is in a position to make these choices. Now Iran felt it had the Shah's regime imposed on it so once it had a revolution it turned its hatred to the West and although initally both Persian and Arab hated Israel, this sparked Iran to take a lead whereas as the Saudis left the Palestinians alone. The Saudis have only very recently become powerful - formerly the military dominated more moderate Egyptians were the leaders and their efforts against Israel saw them sent packing with their tails between their legs leading to the realisation among the surrounding states that Israel was not something thay could really do anything about so Iran stepped in. Then of course we have an even more complex relationship between Iran and Iraq caused to a large extent by Iraq's tripartite population contributed in no small measure by the UK's crass border drawing as its Empire broke up - but then again no other country had to make these decisions, All European countries wanted an empire - we just happened to be the best at building one as the Spanish had been earlier. Once again this situation has nothing to do with the US until very recently and anyone who thinks that Saddam roes to power or Iran and Iraq went to war because of the CIA is simply not really get their head around the situation.

Saudi have used their enormous wealth to promote the form of Islam which dominates their country even though it is only adhered to be 30-40% of its population it just happens to be the part of the population with all the wealth so the make the laws. This form does not necessarily promote extremism but leads easily to an extremist interpretation and demands that societies be run on those grounds. We've seen it in the far east with demands for independence or stricter Islam, in the fault line between Muslim and Christian in Africa, in the Yemen and very recently in North Africa. The extremists have been further backed by mega wealthy people from the gulf looking to promote their religion. The Arab governments are at the very least complicit in looking the other way.

The 2nd Gulf War was a mistake something everone can see with hindsight but the well funded extremists have seized upon the situation. What escalated everything was the so called Arab Spring when democracy made an attempt to break out in Tunisia and Egypt and then spread to Libya, Syria and other places. Then the Gulf decided to exploit counries whose regimes were under pressure from these uprisings and ploughed money into their allies the Muslim Brotherhood. Then came Syria itself. There were originally 2 opposition groups those who believed in freedom and those who believed in a religious stat, not hard to see which one the Saudis favoured. And then the opportunist Al Qaeda in Iraq (they were not Al Qaede it was just a label put on them as terrorists seeking to disrupt plans for democracy in Iraq hoping to impose yet another religious state. Of course US had to deal with these people and maybe mistakes were made in attempting to do deals and maybe they would not have existed yet but for the Gulf War but they would have existed eventually.

In summary the US are involved because they are a superpower but there is one hell of a lot going on which the US is not responsible for. Personally I believe we should try to stop the rise of any regime which openly talks of destroying the West and the only thing stopping the US and a few allies doing more is bad memories of Iraq. The West really hasn't intefered in Syria by making any attempt to topple Asad as Saudi wishes but still the situation is appalling. The US are probably just as confused as everyone else and certainly not to blame for the civil war in Syria. The only thing I would blame the US for is its inaction on Israel's behaviour on the abhorrent settlements - as Israel's only real ally they should have said that military aid was on condition that it stays within its specified borders.

BTW if other countries had the means and the balls to play global policeman, they probably wouldn't do any better.

Phew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, sorry I've been away from the debate for 24 hours, I'm sure I've that been missed, huh.  I've been finding links to give you information about the refugee crisis. My only criteria for selecting what to include is that the source should be as apolitical as possible.  That means no looney-left newspapers and media outlets from my side of the argument and no right-leaning double-think outlets of the same.

Now, do I think any of you will read any of these sources, making the effort I've gone to pointless? Well, I'll be generous and say I'm not sure about that. It depends on whether this thread and the people in it deem themselves to be having intelligent conversation or whether this is just  place for certain folks to hang out and congratulate each other on their ignorance. There's only one caveat - studies and reports were conducted when they were conducted, in all cases I've searched for the most recent - in this instance it is the height of ignorance to dismiss a non-partisan report on refugee numbers, impact, issues or any other of Ozi's arbitrary rules, because the current crisis and refugee numbers is an order of magnitude above levels that any report has dealt with, at any time, ever.  So if you don't agree with the finding of study from 8 years ago, find a later one to disprove it, if you aspire to be taken seriously.

Facts and Figures About Refugee Numbers - United Nations

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

Actual Numbers of Muslims in Europe

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/15/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

Growth of Muslim Populations - Particularly Europe

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/

False Link Between Immigration and Crime

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_immigration_increase_crime

Turkish Report Showing That In A Country With Almost 4 Million Refugees (and many more immigrants), Crime Rate Is Negligible

http://www.turkeyagenda.com/crime-rate-among-syrian-refugees-remain-way-lower-than-expected-1199.html

UN Report Into Right Wing Media Agenda Setting and Misinformation Regarding Refugees

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81we83.htm

Now, [Puts on Dirty Harry Voice] please try and spin any of the above to suit the agenda the media you consume has you repeating, go ahead, make my day... ;)

And finally:

Article 26 - Freedom of Movement

Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.

Refugees are just as free to move around in Europe as any other legal person. In fact, they are more free to move around Europe than a non-refugee American tourist who has lost his passport and visa.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...