Paris attacks/explosions
#76
If Murdoch can distort things sufficiently to get Abbott elected, then the message "don't be a psychotic, murdering, arsehole" ought to be well within their capabilities.
#77
Sigh, nope he wasn't right.
Firstly, and pretty obviously, those borders are quite porous even if there is no schengen. Any terrorist capable of carrying out an attack can get past without undue hassle. "Ze border posts,zey do nothing!"
Second, if europe said "nope, we aren't going to let in the syrians, we're going to turn back the boats" the story just becomes europe killing muslims via hypocritical evil, and ISIS still win through more recruits.
Last, the problem with the 'stop the boats' idea is that it's only ever a small, time limited, approach. It's not that complicated to saturate the ability to intercept them by coordinating when the boats sail, etc. - particularly when there's only a small amount of sea.
Personally I've never been for open borders in europe (it's a political ideology thing focused on bringing about a federated united states of europe). I've also not been for letting in millions of syrian refugees - since it misses the point. The need is to deal with syria, and indeed all failed states, and fix them such that people can live there in peace. Letting refugees settle in europe just means they select the best and brightest - exactly the ones that will be needed to rebuild syria.
Firstly, and pretty obviously, those borders are quite porous even if there is no schengen. Any terrorist capable of carrying out an attack can get past without undue hassle. "Ze border posts,zey do nothing!"
Second, if europe said "nope, we aren't going to let in the syrians, we're going to turn back the boats" the story just becomes europe killing muslims via hypocritical evil, and ISIS still win through more recruits.
Last, the problem with the 'stop the boats' idea is that it's only ever a small, time limited, approach. It's not that complicated to saturate the ability to intercept them by coordinating when the boats sail, etc. - particularly when there's only a small amount of sea.
Personally I've never been for open borders in europe (it's a political ideology thing focused on bringing about a federated united states of europe). I've also not been for letting in millions of syrian refugees - since it misses the point. The need is to deal with syria, and indeed all failed states, and fix them such that people can live there in peace. Letting refugees settle in europe just means they select the best and brightest - exactly the ones that will be needed to rebuild syria.
I agree with this - most Syrian refugees don't want to be refugees at all. Most just want to live in peace, earn some money and have a nice life. However Syria is pretty much smashed - it will take a generation to rebuild it, and that's assuming that IS could be eradicated overnight.
S
#78
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040











Sigh, nope he wasn't right.
Firstly, and pretty obviously, those borders are quite porous even if there is no schengen. Any terrorist capable of carrying out an attack can get past without undue hassle. "Ze border posts,zey do nothing!"
Second, if europe said "nope, we aren't going to let in the syrians, we're going to turn back the boats" the story just becomes europe killing muslims via hypocritical evil, and ISIS still win through more recruits.
Last, the problem with the 'stop the boats' idea is that it's only ever a small, time limited, approach. It's not that complicated to saturate the ability to intercept them by coordinating when the boats sail, etc. - particularly when there's only a small amount of sea.
Personally I've never been for open borders in europe (it's a political ideology thing focused on bringing about a federated united states of europe). I've also not been for letting in millions of syrian refugees - since it misses the point. The need is to deal with syria, and indeed all failed states, and fix them such that people can live there in peace. Letting refugees settle in europe just means they select the best and brightest - exactly the ones that will be needed to rebuild syria.
Firstly, and pretty obviously, those borders are quite porous even if there is no schengen. Any terrorist capable of carrying out an attack can get past without undue hassle. "Ze border posts,zey do nothing!"
Second, if europe said "nope, we aren't going to let in the syrians, we're going to turn back the boats" the story just becomes europe killing muslims via hypocritical evil, and ISIS still win through more recruits.
Last, the problem with the 'stop the boats' idea is that it's only ever a small, time limited, approach. It's not that complicated to saturate the ability to intercept them by coordinating when the boats sail, etc. - particularly when there's only a small amount of sea.
Personally I've never been for open borders in europe (it's a political ideology thing focused on bringing about a federated united states of europe). I've also not been for letting in millions of syrian refugees - since it misses the point. The need is to deal with syria, and indeed all failed states, and fix them such that people can live there in peace. Letting refugees settle in europe just means they select the best and brightest - exactly the ones that will be needed to rebuild syria.
There is nothing wrong with walls in the right place and the right time. The time is right. The best thing about walls is they can go up and come down pretty quickly.
#79
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040











When the 1.6 billion muslims inner self says who are we going to support in this war, it aint gonna be the west.
#80
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040











I agree with this - most Syrian refugees don't want to be refugees at all. Most just want to live in peace, earn some money and have a nice life. However Syria is pretty much smashed - it will take a generation to rebuild it, and that's assuming that IS could be eradicated overnight.
S
S
#81
Could be the Isis campaign is v the West is gaining public support where there wasn't any before.....dammit.
https://twitter.com/ecetoksabay/stat...85293924216832.
https://twitter.com/ecetoksabay/stat...85293924216832.
I feel sorry for Admiral Akbar - he's going to cop a lot of flak going forward I would think...
S
#82
The take away from the ME disaster is that unpleasant though they were, the regional dictatorships did seem to keep the tribal and religious factional rivalry at bay. It will be interesting to see what happens in Egypt going forward. Mubarak - despite being a huge f**ker - did a reasonably good job of strong arming the small factions. The last thing the West expected was for the Islamic Brotherhood to be elected in pseudo democratic elections.
And the West trying to topple Assad has been a disaster, and has lead to the position we see here today. Trying to get local rebels and other parties to do our dirty work has backfired spectacularly. It's generated a huge power vacuum within regional Syria that has been filled by IS and lots of hardware from defecting elements of the Iraqi army.
And let's not forget that the Saudis are also supplying IS with money, arms and support, yet the US are still supplying Saudi. I saw that Putin made an announcement yesterday about 40 identified backers of IS. He didn't go as far as to mention the Saudis, but we all know that's who he was getting at.
Jordan seems to be the last remnant of sanity in the ME, and even they are starting to look less and less stable as time moves on.
As you said above, it's clear that Western style democracy doesn't work in countries where a predominantly middle aged religion prevails. I don't yet feel able to blame Islam as a culture - there are many strands of Islam, and some of the atrocities visited on Shia muslims by their Sunni brethren are no better than they are visiting on the infidel westerners.
The big question is where exactly do we go from here?
S
#83
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040











The take away from the ME disaster is that unpleasant though they were, the regional dictatorships did seem to keep the tribal and religious factional rivalry at bay. It will be interesting to see what happens in Egypt going forward. Mubarak - despite being a huge f**ker - did a reasonably good job of strong arming the small factions. The last thing the West expected was for the Islamic Brotherhood to be elected in pseudo democratic elections.
And the West trying to topple Assad has been a disaster, and has lead to the position we see here today. Trying to get local rebels and other parties to do our dirty work has backfired spectacularly. It's generated a huge power vacuum within regional Syria that has been filled by IS and lots of hardware from defecting elements of the Iraqi army.
And let's not forget that the Saudis are also supplying IS with money, arms and support, yet the US are still supplying Saudi. I saw that Putin made an announcement yesterday about 40 identified backers of IS. He didn't go as far as to mention the Saudis, but we all know that's who he was getting at.
Jordan seems to be the last remnant of sanity in the ME, and even they are starting to look less and less stable as time moves on.
As you said above, it's clear that Western style democracy doesn't work in countries where a predominantly middle aged religion prevails. I don't yet feel able to blame Islam as a culture - there are many strands of Islam, and some of the atrocities visited on Shia muslims by their Sunni brethren are no better than they are visiting on the infidel westerners.
The big question is where exactly do we go from here?
S
And the West trying to topple Assad has been a disaster, and has lead to the position we see here today. Trying to get local rebels and other parties to do our dirty work has backfired spectacularly. It's generated a huge power vacuum within regional Syria that has been filled by IS and lots of hardware from defecting elements of the Iraqi army.
And let's not forget that the Saudis are also supplying IS with money, arms and support, yet the US are still supplying Saudi. I saw that Putin made an announcement yesterday about 40 identified backers of IS. He didn't go as far as to mention the Saudis, but we all know that's who he was getting at.
Jordan seems to be the last remnant of sanity in the ME, and even they are starting to look less and less stable as time moves on.
As you said above, it's clear that Western style democracy doesn't work in countries where a predominantly middle aged religion prevails. I don't yet feel able to blame Islam as a culture - there are many strands of Islam, and some of the atrocities visited on Shia muslims by their Sunni brethren are no better than they are visiting on the infidel westerners.
The big question is where exactly do we go from here?
S
Step 1. Build walls.
Step 2. Extinguish your enemy within.
Step 3. Ground forces into Syria.
Step 4. ............. ? That's where it gets really tricky. But its a long term game, that's for sure, but at least you have built your own defences. Right now Europe has none, they don't even have the tech nor the legal means of intercepting comms.
#85
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040











I think most people would accept and hope its not a war against an entire religion. ...... though it could become one if you don't put up the walls.
#86
Account Closed
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0

Could be the Isis campaign is v the West is gaining public support where there wasn't any before.....dammit. https://twitter.com/ecetoksabay/stat...85293924216832.
#88
BE Forum Addict






Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,230











Putting up walls would make that more likely to happen. It'd be solidifying the "us vs them" narrative that the extremists are craving.
#89
Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but that looks suspiciously like you're apologising on behalf of western civilization for causing the rise in public support for IS. I had a couple of beers last night and my head's still a little fuzzy, so there's every chance I read it wrong.
I can tell the Turkish and to a lesser extent the Iranian scarf wearing Muslim women apart from most of the others..... They're the ones that greet me in the local shops with a "Hi Luv" in a fairly strong Aussie accent, tinged with a bit of middle eastern. IE: The same greeting as everyone else around here.
So I'm a bit concerned that a sizeable element has seen fit to make it's displeasure known at the football.
I've found out since in having a chat with some locals, that there is a little bit of consternation amongst the Turks, inasmuch as when the Bombs went of in Ankara at the peace rally re their government bombing the Kurds, there wasn't anywhere near the outpouring of grief for this front line country from the rest of Europe. Even though there was a similar number of casualties. That lack of empathy didn't go unnoticed amongst the Turks.
It's a bit like we don't care if this front line predominantly muslim country is on our side or not.
Last edited by ozzieeagle; Nov 18th 2015 at 12:59 pm.
#90
Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but that looks suspiciously like you're apologising on behalf of western civilization for causing the rise in public support for IS. I had a couple of beers last night and my head's still a little fuzzy, so there's every chance I read it wrong.
At this point you want to do everything to avoid drawing lines/building walls - and this shows why that's key.



