No african or middle eastern universities' degrees has value in europe, and unless you're talking about human guinea's pigs I won't see any people that come from the third world in a research lab. Which is one of my fields of works too.
And human experimentation is illegal and morally wrong, you can't really mean it but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
Blackie wrote: No african or middle eastern universities' degrees has value in europe, and unless you're talking about human guinea's pigs I won't see any people that come from the third world in a research lab. Which is one of my fields of works too.
And human experimentation is illegal and morally wrong, you can't really mean it but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
I'm not entirely sure where you are getting your information regarding the validity of degrees from other countries.
I really do object to the concept that all/a majority of migrants are slack jawed yokels straight out the village look to Take Ur Jurb.
I mean, seriously. If you're worried that a migrant, who Blackie alleges are all inherently illiterate is going to steal your job....I'd suggest migration is the very least of your problems.
Here's the thing. Migration costs money. It is not cheap nor easy to upsticks and flit halfway across the world in search of a better life.
It's a lot of expensive, hardwork. First you need to find work (provided you're not a European looking to move to another European country), and somewhere to stay, and you need to make sure that work pays enough for you to live on.
The Gutter Press in the UK freaked out because Poles were coming over here, renovating our kitchens, sorting out our plumbing, all for a price native plumbers etc wouldn't meet. They criticised them for having high density house shares. They claimed they were here to stay.
They weren't. And they never were. Instead, they saw an opportunity I would kill for - the opportunity to work in a different country for comparatively ludicrous wages, endure a few years of slightly uncomfortable living, then return home with enough money to buy a house outright, and with enough of a nest egg that my financial worries are done with for the foreseeable. Seriously - who wouldn't want to do that given the chance?
Migration is the very history of mankind. It's in our DNA. It's a solid survival mechanism.
And let's not forget national borders are an entirely notional thing anyway.
And human experimentation is illegal and morally wrong, you can't really mean it but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm not trying to silence anyone, I'm trying to point out that allying yourself with xenophobic douchebags is a really poor idea. You're more than welcome to protest against government policies, but when the basis of the protest is "the immigrants are taking our jobs!" or variations thereof you're no longer arguing in good faith. It's entirely possible to protest against stupid governance WITHOUT having to join forces with the far right, but people would rather take the easy way out and blame it on the immigrants than to organize politically separately from the far right.
But on the other hand, when you have established parties that always get a lot of votes just because "I always voted X" it can be pretty hard to get a new party started and get enough votes to become something. Single-issue parties just don't manage to get that many votes - they can get enough to join the opposition but not the government. Usually.
We had that with our Perussuomalaiset party (Basic Finns would be the easiest translation though foreign news often call them True Finns) where good people worried about society at large allied with anti-immigration and in some cases pure racists in order to get enough votes to make a dent. They got large enough that the other election winners had to accept them into government, but the fractured nature of their supporters means they've lost much of their support over various issues. They had to back down on social issues due to the recession, and they haven't been able to push through everything on their anti-immigration agenda either. The party will likely disintegrate, which is good for getting rid of the racists but not that good when the ones worried about the weakest and poorest members of society are concerned. Whatever good they wanted to do for the downtrodden will be lost because they allied with racist scum. But if they hadn't they would never have reached the position they hold.
Blackie wrote: there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe
Ahah you wish. Not only in research labs, but also at the top of STEM companies too.
I have first-hand knowledge of all that, you know.
Oooook, are you a vegan??
I'm a biomedical engineer, I've never seen an african-middle eastern man/woman in the medical field, people of foreign origins sure, but no one that actually studied in the third world. But maybe in france it's a different story. Anyway africans doctors or not, france is exactly the perfect example of how a european country should not be.
Blackie wrote: I'm a biomedical engineer, I've never seen an african-middle eastern man/woman in the medical field, people of foreign origins sure, but no one that actually studied in the third world.
I have a PhD in computer science, and I have seen plenty. And just in case you want us to believe that it's only the case in CS, I have a very good friend who is has a PhD in molecular biology, and got a Master degree equivalent in Iran before coming to France. Her sister did the same too. .
Blackie wrote: No african or middle eastern universities' degrees has value in europe, and unless you're talking about human guinea's pigs I won't see any people that come from the third world in a research lab. Which is one of my fields of works too.
And human experimentation is illegal and morally wrong, you can't really mean it but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
I'm going to assume there is a translation issue here. Calling people, especially people of colour "savages' is very offensive and rude in English.
Blackie wrote: No african or middle eastern universities' degrees has value in europe, and unless you're talking about human guinea's pigs I won't see any people that come from the third world in a research lab. Which is one of my fields of works too.
And human experimentation is illegal and morally wrong, you can't really mean it but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
I'm going to assume there is a translation issue here. Calling people, especially people of colour "savages' is very offensive and rude in English.
Sometimes I wonder where dakkadakka finds these people, I feel like were 5 minutes away from some dark continent comment.
Nevertheless some information from when the refugee crisis was at its height: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/1-asylum-seeker-origins-a-rapid-rise-for-most-countries/ As you can see the first 3 highest numbers are from basically war zones and the next two are from European countries. 42% of these people are young males between 18-34 years old, its a significant amount, but nowhere near the vast majority. Note that 46% were women and children.
Also some crime numbers on the country most 'affected' by the refugee crisis.
Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.) Furthermore, according to Deutsche Welle’s analysis of the report, the number of offenses increased in the first half of 2015 but “stagnated” in the second half, precisely when most of the refugees were arriving and the rumor mill switched into overdrive. And although sexual offenses account for over 25 percent of the rumors on the Hoaxmap, the BKA data showed that only 1 percent of refugee-related crimes fell into the sexual offense category.
Unless of course we start arguing there is some vast undercurrent of illegals that never got registered before disappearing into illegality that dwarfs those I listed.
Oh and just because some seem to be going crazy over Hybrid's MALE comments, here are some fun charts:
Maybe people should consider the fact that Blackie is Italian, and that most people who get there from African countries do so illegaly through Lampedusa. It is a completely different situation from that of Fulan ibn Fulan (aka Someone Someoneson) who is from an ex-French colony, has a degree and thanks to his university's ties got a job in Europe. Or to that of Persian Girl (no relation at all to Florida Man, or to Kentucky Man), who studied in the Lyceé Françoise and got to go to France. Or whatever other case of going to your old metropoli because now you are friends.
Now, I'm not advocating to shoot their boats and let them drown, but its pretty easy to call out racism while sitting with your tea (or booze), looking out the window and not seeing another episode of Zodiac D-Day, starring 40 people (more like 50 if we count pregnant women as two persons), a badly maintained Zodiac and one bucket of suspicious drinking water.
Or people climbing a wall, violating your borders and attacking your policemen. After all the work you did to put spikes and sharp things on it.
Also, its really funny how Spain is that one country in Europe thats stable and doesn't have a xenophobic right. I'm not sure how Forza Nuova is on Italy, they seem kinda like a joke but I haven't done much reasearch. Point is, no Le Pen and no UKIP and no Nederlanden Guy who I can't remember righ now.
Also, if you are so worried about people running away from war only to die or be mistreated, maybe consider putting more money into keeping the Mediterranean safe, putting more presure on North African countries that get rich off of those illegal immigrants who whore off their life's savings to get to Europe.
Or at the very least, cut all the jokes about spending your money on booze and bitches. It was funny the first few times, those Mediterraneans are all partiers and so!. But its a done joke.
Maybe we shold put all the illegals on trains and send them to France. And France can send them to Germany, or Poland, or Scandinavia!
Also, how's the thing going on in there with the bad guys and the worse guys? Did some offensive happen? I've seen something about the rebels launching an offensive against the legitimate government of Syria (hey, you can say whatever you want about how he's a monster, and I'll probably agree, but he's the one recognized government right now) 3 days ago, does anyone have any details? I'm only finding pieces.
Blackie wrote: But in my opinion having 1, 5, 10 or 20 of these western extremists is an exception, intelligence says there are thousands of radicals and possible terrorists in europe,
I'm sure it does, but those thousands include White, Christian Sociopaths, and far more than 20 or even 200 of them. Europe's home grown boys are playing the long game and most understand that high body-counts don't push their agenda (usually). They also tend to lean toward car bombs and mortar attacks than suicide runs.
@ aldo: I have a whole country over run by all these crazy Europeans that call themselves Americans. Believe me, I live every day what would be Blackies worst nightmare and frankly, it's not as bad as i grouse about sometimes. As far as I know, the action is all in Mosul atm, with IS holding on, so far.
Even at their best, battleships depended on a large amount of support ships to protect it from airstrikes and submarines.
and that's different from every single other surface combatant HOW exactly???? (though, in fact, a battleship can, on it's own, mount significant CWIS and SAMs).
Even assuming that the battleship is practically invulnerable to missiles, its support ships aren't, and the battleship doesn't has the range to engage missile destroyers.
Interestingly, battleships DO carry cruise missile launchers as secondary weapons post 1980. Further there's absolutely nothing that says that a battleship can't be built with several VLS in addition to it's main armament.
To put a 40k example. The battleship is like Guilliman, with an absurd punch and incredibly hard to kill, but it still basically a melee model with a 6" move.
.....you really do not know a lot about battleships, do you? You do know that there's a whole classification called 'Fast Battleship' for a reason, right? Iowa, as an example, has a top speed exceeding many foreign nations carriers and those, not the cruisers or missile DDs, are what sets the pace for a carrier group.
aldo wrote: Now, I'm not advocating to shoot their boats and let them drown, but its pretty easy to call out racism while sitting with your tea (or booze), looking out the window and not seeing another episode of Zodiac D-Day, starring 40 people (more like 50 if we count pregnant women as two persons), a badly maintained Zodiac and one bucket of suspicious drinking water.
So you are saying that it's easier to not dehumanize people when you don't see them rather than when you see them ?
aldo wrote: Or people climbing a wall, violating your borders and attacking your policemen.
Suuuuuuuuuuure…
aldo wrote: Or at the very least, cut all the jokes about spending your money on booze and bitches. It was funny the first few times, those Mediterraneans are all partiers and so!. But its a done joke.
???
I have no idea what you are talking about.
aldo wrote: Maybe we shold put all the illegals on trains and send them to France. And France can send them to Germany, or Poland, or Scandinavia!
???
So you think there are more illegal immigrants in Spain than in France?
That's true. She took the decision to invite them here without consulting anyone else (particularly Greece and Italy who'd bare the brunt of it), so she should be shouldering the burden.
and that's different from every single other surface combatant HOW exactly???? (though, in fact, a battleship can, on it's own, mount significant CWIS and SAMs).
The difference is that the battleship pays a lot for that heavy armor. Heavy armor that is useless against torpedoes. Any other ship works on the idea of not being hit in the first place
Interestingly, battleships DO carry cruise missile launchers as secondary weapons post 1980. Further there's absolutely nothing that says that a battleship can't be built with several VLS in addition to it's main armament.
.....you really do not know a lot about battleships, do you? You do know that there's a whole classification called 'Fast Battleship' for a reason, right? Iowa, as an example, has a top speed exceeding many foreign nations carriers and those, not the cruisers or missile DDs, are what sets the pace for a carrier group.
A 35 knot speed isn't going to change the fact that its main armament is out-ranged by several orders of magnitude.
If the battleship comes back, it isn't going for anti-ship duties but for coastal bombardment. Its guns are not optimized for mobile targets that can comfortably engage it from a thousand miles away.
aldo wrote: Maybe people should consider the fact that Blackie is Italian, and that most people who get there from African countries do so illegaly through Lampedusa. It is a completely different situation from that of Fulan ibn Fulan (aka Someone Someoneson) who is from an ex-French colony, has a degree and thanks to his university's ties got a job in Europe. Or to that of Persian Girl (no relation at all to Florida Man, or to Kentucky Man), who studied in the Lyceé Françoise and got to go to France. Or whatever other case of going to your old metropoli because now you are friends.
Now, I'm not advocating to shoot their boats and let them drown, but its pretty easy to call out racism while sitting with your tea (or booze), looking out the window and not seeing another episode of Zodiac D-Day, starring 40 people (more like 50 if we count pregnant women as two persons), a badly maintained Zodiac and one bucket of suspicious drinking water.
Or people climbing a wall, violating your borders and attacking your policemen. After all the work you did to put spikes and sharp things on it.
Also, its really funny how Spain is that one country in Europe thats stable and doesn't have a xenophobic right. I'm not sure how Forza Nuova is on Italy, they seem kinda like a joke but I haven't done much reasearch. Point is, no Le Pen and no UKIP and no Nederlanden Guy who I can't remember righ now.
Also, if you are so worried about people running away from war only to die or be mistreated, maybe consider putting more money into keeping the Mediterranean safe, putting more presure on North African countries that get rich off of those illegal immigrants who whore off their life's savings to get to Europe.
Or at the very least, cut all the jokes about spending your money on booze and bitches. It was funny the first few times, those Mediterraneans are all partiers and so!. But its a done joke.
Maybe we shold put all the illegals on trains and send them to France. And France can send them to Germany, or Poland, or Scandinavia!
Also, how's the thing going on in there with the bad guys and the worse guys? Did some offensive happen? I've seen something about the rebels launching an offensive against the legitimate government of Syria (hey, you can say whatever you want about how he's a monster, and I'll probably agree, but he's the one recognized government right now) 3 days ago, does anyone have any details? I'm only finding pieces.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. People with higher education degrees might have an easier time to apply for certain visas for jobs in industries. Compare this to refugees or lower educated migrants that have to take a more difficult way in. It doesn't mean these people are less educated or savages, it just means we play favourites on who we rather want in the EU.
Most of Italy won't see the horrors of Lampedusa personally either and will get the exact same images as the rest of us do through media.
Just to make clear why Spain does not suffer from a significant right wing party. Spain overall has very little problems with migrants and refugees. As well as having nowhere near the Muslim population for politicians to fear-monger off of. Less than 2% of Spain is Muslim and this number is so insignificant that this 2% includes Islam, Protestant Christianity and Buddhism, so few they don't even get their own %. This is not comparable to countries like France or Germany (I don't condone the Islamophobia in either case, just saying Spain doesn't have the same 'fertile' electoral basis). Yes, migrants/refugees do rush your African enclaves but most of these migrants don't want to stay in Spain as demonstrated by this list. This is why Spain does not have a significant populist or xenophobic backlash. It just doesn't get anywhere near the same number of refugees/asylum seekers as other EU countries, too few to even get listed! Spain gets only 1% of all asylum applications from all those migrants and refugees entering the EU! I mean it gets even less than the UK. Compare this to 33% of all application for Germany and a 5% chunk of the country being Muslim and you have a much firmer basis for populists who can prey on xenophobes. Spain experiences at least less than a fifth of the influx of the refugee crisis compared to most of the countries you list. This is why you aren't "unstable and xenophobic" as you imply, unless you can link me to some research that shows me that Spain is much more magnanimous while not in any way being able to link this magnanimity to these demographic factors. Italy has its own problems with right wing parties, with especially the Lega Nord being viewed as similar to Le Pen and their views on migrants: http://www.politico.eu/article/italys-other-matteo-salvini-northern-league-politicians-media-effettosalvini/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/13/lega-nord-migrants-rome-stand-off-luca-zaia Every European country has problems. The Netherlands for example have some populist and xenophobic backlash, ironically in the least ethnically diverse parts of the country Geert Wilders (the guy you couldn't remember) is the strongest. I guess just the idea of seeing some spooky person that isn't lily-white is too much for some people in my country Spain has its own problems with social conservatism and I very much debate your definition of stable, are the Netherlands or Germany unstable? Every EU country has problems, we just express and experience it differently.
The EU already spends a lot on patrolling the shores and sea, but its just too little and the smugglers have an interest in evading these patrols. And seeing as how most of these smugglers operate from the hell hole known as Libya I don't see how that nation is enriching itself of these migrants/refugees. We already try to intercept them off the Libyan coast and sent them back. There just isn't enough money in the EU to stop every little boat.
And Dijsselbloem made one joke, probably because he was so tired of the economical instability of the Mediterranean EU countries. Of course he should have never made that joke. But the frustration in Northern Europe is real. We are bailing out Greeks, Spanish, Portugese and with a bit of bad luck Italians. Even the French mess up, its just frustrating reform is so slow to push through for something affecting the whole Eurozone. Talk about Spain being stable (Personal opinion: I think this whole shtick is stupid, we chose the Eurozone and didn't implement it properly. Of course there is a measure of personal responsibility in the Mediterranean countries not getting their finances in order. We can pressure them on that point, but please lets stop pretending were getting our money back from places like Greece, just start restructuring that debt instead of forever being afraid of losing those voters dumb enough to realize that money is never going to come back. The lack of future planning and the sense of being kindred EU states is seriously lacking in most EU states .)
But lets not pretend we do some research before spewing out crap like 'put them on the trains!'. Most illegals did get registered before leaving the official track, before getting their asylum denied (as economic migrants frequently realize they might not be allowed to stay). Prove to me these illegals are living in Spain or Italy in huge numbers, because as you can see Spain is certainly not anywhere near pulling its weight size wise in the EU.
Actually, some Western countries have also accepted the opposition as the recognized government of Syria, so you get to pick and choose if the monster murdering his own people really deserves to be called the official government. More to the point, the rebels have been launching a small offensive on Damascus to relieve pressure on their front and restore certain positions in the region. In my view, its the rebels trying to show the West that they are still there. After the crushing losses such as Aleppo and the focus on the final push for Raqqa, the rebels are getting a bit forgotten and slowly but surely crushed by the Syrian/Russian/Iranian forces grinding away at their territory. It also coincides with peace talks that are supposed to start this week, so besides letting the world know they still exist, attacking Damascus also shows Assad that they aren't ready to roll over and die. It might strengthen their bargaining position depending on the state of the Syrian army to continue fighting after six years and regional allies's willingness to commit more troops and material to Assad who might not be seen winning in the short term.
In italy only a few of the illegals that cross the sea get the refugee status, but our police can't use the force to send them back. That's means that thousands of illegals cross the border illegally (if they can) and then disappears through europe, many others become slaves exploited by mafia groups. They work in the fields with no human rights, or as drug dealers or they sell counterfeit stuff at shores. Over 90% of them are men. In this article it's explained that 97% of the illegals that asked for the refugees status in Padova couldn't get it, because there were no wars or persecutions in their countries. It's written in italian, sorry about that, but I don't think I will never find articles about this in english.
In countries like germany, sweden, norway or the uk it's a different story, they only take the real refugees or people that managed to be disguised as a refugee, we take everyone instead because otherwise they would drown. But once they get here they can't have a future, they're not refugees and they lack any competence. And thanks to our extremely slow bureaucracy it takes 1-2 years to determine if a man is a refugee or not, in the meantime they are treated like they were refugees. In several occasions they terrorized the residents showing their violent nature, and these ones are the people host in refugees' shelters, not those ones that have already turned into criminals.
In the article posted by disciple of faith I read about the nationality of those asylum seekers, in italy come no one from syria, iraq or afghanistan, they're mostly from nigeria, cameroon, gambia, eritrea, somalia but also tunisia, algeria and morocco, some from pakistan and balcanic regions. In the EU the refugee status is not granted automatically if you come from there nations, in many occasions there isn't the slightest chance to get it. Many of the illegals don't even ask for the status, they know they won't get it.
Muslims communities here are made by people that lived in italy since many years, many of them are italians with foreign origins but citizens like any other people that was born here.
Far rights groups (which are extremely weak in Italy, thankfully) don't make distintions, they talk about race, colur of the skin and religion. I talk about the way of living and the relationship between a person and his/her faith.
The london attacker was a wealthy english man, not someone that comes from the third world, or someone that wanted revenge as the uk bombed his country of origin. Radicalism should not be tolerated, ISIS and terrorism are only a consequence, if we wipe out ISIS in the regions where they reign we would solve nothing, another radical muslim group will take its place immediately.
Sending back the illegals in an efficient way and fight religious radicalisms are two different things, but we can't solve the problem if we don't deal with both factors.
Blackie wrote: In italy only a few of the illegals that cross the sea get the refugee status, but our police can't use the force to send them back. That's means that thousands of illegals cross the border illegally (if they can) and then disappears through europe, many others become slaves exploited by mafia groups. They work in the fields with no human rights, or as drug dealers or they sell counterfeit stuff at shores. Over 90% of them are men. In this article it's explained that 97% of the illegals that asked for the refugees status in Padova couldn't get it, because there were no wars or persecutions in their countries. It's written in italian, sorry about that, but I don't think I will never find articles about this in english.
In countries like germany, sweden, norway or the uk it's a different story, they only take the real refugees or people that managed to be disguised as a refugee, we take everyone instead because otherwise they would drown. But once they get here they can't have a future, they're not refugees and they lack any competence. And thanks to our extremely slow bureaucracy it takes 1-2 years to determine if a man is a refugee or not, in the meantime they are treated like they were refugees. In several occasions they terrorized the residents showing their violent nature, and these ones are the people host in refugees' shelters, not those ones that have already turned into criminals.
In the article posted by disciple of faith I read about the nationality of those asylum seekers, in italy come no one from syria, iraq or afghanistan, they're mostly from nigeria, cameroon, gambia, eritrea, somalia but also tunisia, algeria and morocco, some from pakistan and balcanic regions. In the EU the refugee status is not granted automatically if you come from there nations, in many occasions there isn't the slightest chance to get it. Many of the illegals don't even ask for the status, they know they won't get it.
Muslims communities here are made by people that lived in italy since many years, many of them are italians with foreign origins but citizens like any other people that was born here.
Far rights groups (which are extremely weak in Italy, thankfully) don't make distintions, they talk about race, colur of the skin and religion. I talk about the way of living and the relationship between a person and his/her faith.
The london attacker was a wealthy english man, not someone that comes from the third world, or someone that wanted revenge as the uk bombed his country of origin. Radicalism should not be tolerated, ISIS and terrorism are only a consequence, if we wipe out ISIS in the regions where they reign we would solve nothing, another radical muslim group will take its place immediately.
Sending back the illegals in an efficient way and fight religious radicalisms are two different things, but we can't solve the problem if we don't deal with both factors.
I think the issue here is what you term as illegals. Technically you could term all the refugees and migrants as illegals as they don't have the legal permission to enter the EU (refugees are a bit of a legal issue concerning status, first safe country and travelling further etc.). The issue with illegals you mention is those documented that cross to Italy coming from African countries that people would term as economic migrants. Seeing the goal why they come here (making money for their family back home) and the fact that they will realize they won't be granted political asylum the go into illegality after being processed in the system. If you look at this chart it does mention the African countries from which many migrants come: This also clearly shows you that Italy has nowhere near the same problem as other EU states (look at the application numbers posted). These people arriving in Italy don't just have free reign. They go to processing facilities from islands such as Lampedusa and get their applications filed. But after this is done they get send to asylum centres, from which point onward they go into illegality. You say these people never ask for status but they don't have to. The vast majority arrives on tiny islands or outposts in Spanish Northern Africa or Greek and Italian islands. We as Europeans transport them to the mainland from which point onward they trek to Germany or go into illegality. We have paperwork on these people going into illegality, we just don't keep track of all the people that this paperwork is connected to. Like Hybrid said, do you have proof of Italy being swamped and all those illegals not moving on to places like France. Because I can make such a statement without number too but with English articles: http://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-migrants-deprived-of-rights-on-french-italian-border/ Technically we don't have to let them pass as they should let themselves be processed in their country of entry, but we all know this takes years and is more than an unfair burden to put on places like Greece or Italy. And I'm not going in on crime rate as you will have to back that up, as googling crime and migrants will list you a ton of shitposting by organisations such as breibart and muslimstatistics (insert vomit orkmoticon). The only data I found on crime rate between migrants and Italians of the same age category that seems anywhere reliable, shows me a 1.8% rate for migrants and 1.5% for Italians, not exactly a shocking number as Italians will vastly outnumber the amount of migrants, thereby making the 0.3% higher number by migrants outnumbered in absolute numbers by Italians in the age group. But this does in no way take into account the fact that economic conditions for the vast majority of Italians in that age group will be better than for those migrants. You might say 'yeah its .3% higher and its higher whatever you say', but these people are basically destitute after they have crossed. In reference the crime rate for Italians over 65 in the study is .6%. So If migrants are such terrible criminals you might want to start locking up specific age groups next.
My issue isn't with fighting terrorism, my issue is in the misrepresentation of migration and refugees.
Future War Cultist wrote: That's true. She took the decision to invite them here without consulting anyone else (particularly Greece and Italy who'd bare the brunt of it), so she should be shouldering the burden.
Germany is, and she really didn't have much choice, IIRC Germany's Constitution appears to require that she do so.(article 16a "Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum")
A 35 knot speed isn't going to change the fact that its main armament is out-ranged by several orders of magnitude.
I'd really like to go into depth with you on this, about how a BB can hold many, many more VLS cells as secondary armament than three or four Ticonderoga class missile cruisers can field as main armament, but let's focus on the topic. No further posts will be answered here on BBs.
Future War Cultist wrote: That's true. She took the decision to invite them here without consulting anyone else (particularly Greece and Italy who'd bare the brunt of it), so she should be shouldering the burden.
Germany is, and she really didn't have much choice, IIRC Germany's Constitution appears to require that she do so.(article 16a "Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum")
A 35 knot speed isn't going to change the fact that its main armament is out-ranged by several orders of magnitude.
I'd really like to go into depth with you on this, about how a BB can hold many, many more VLS cells as secondary armament than three or four Ticonderoga class missile cruisers can field as main armament, but let's focus on the topic. No further posts will be answered here on BBs.
Should we just start a new thread on the floating fortresses if people want to discuss the subject.
Its a distinct topic so I think mods be fine.
Future War Cultist wrote: That's true. She took the decision to invite them here without consulting anyone else (particularly Greece and Italy who'd bare the brunt of it), so she should be shouldering the burden.
Germany is, and she really didn't have much choice, IIRC Germany's Constitution appears to require that she do so.(article 16a "Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum")
A 35 knot speed isn't going to change the fact that its main armament is out-ranged by several orders of magnitude.
I'd really like to go into depth with you on this, about how a BB can hold many, many more VLS cells as secondary armament than three or four Ticonderoga class missile cruisers can field as main armament, but let's focus on the topic. No further posts will be answered here on BBs.
If it merits it we could make a new thread to cover the floating fortress debate.
Its distinct and should be ok with mods.
I think the issue here is what you term as illegals. Technically you could term all the refugees and migrants as illegals as they don't have the legal permission to enter the EU (refugees are a bit of a legal issue concerning status, first safe country and travelling further etc.). The issue with illegals you mention is those documented that cross to Italy coming from African countries that people would term as economic migrants. Seeing the goal why they come here (making money for their family back home) and the fact that they will realize they won't be granted political asylum the go into illegality after being processed in the system. If you look at this chart it does mention the African countries from which many migrants come:
This also clearly shows you that Italy has nowhere near the same problem as other EU states (look at the application numbers posted). These people arriving in Italy don't just have free reign. They go to processing facilities from islands such as Lampedusa and get their applications filed. But after this is done they get send to asylum centres, from which point onward they go into illegality. You say these people never ask for status but they don't have to. The vast majority arrives on tiny islands or outposts in Spanish Northern Africa or Greek and Italian islands. We as Europeans transport them to the mainland from which point onward they trek to Germany or go into illegality. We have paperwork on these people going into illegality, we just don't keep track of all the people that this paperwork is connected to. Like Hybrid said, do you have proof of Italy being swamped and all those illegals not moving on to places like France. Because I can make such a statement without number too but with English articles: http://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-migrants-deprived-of-rights-on-french-italian-border/ Technically we don't have to let them pass as they should let themselves be processed in their country of entry, but we all know this takes years and is more than an unfair burden to put on places like Greece or Italy. And I'm not going in on crime rate as you will have to back that up, as googling crime and migrants will list you a ton of shitposting by organisations such as breibart and muslimstatistics (insert vomit orkmoticon). The only data I found on crime rate between migrants and Italians of the same age category that seems anywhere reliable, shows me a 1.8% rate for migrants and 1.5% for Italians, not exactly a shocking number as Italians will vastly outnumber the amount of migrants, thereby making the 0.3% higher number by migrants outnumbered in absolute numbers by Italians in the age group. But this does in no way take into account the fact that economic conditions for the vast majority of Italians in that age group will be better than for those migrants. You might say 'yeah its .3% higher and its higher whatever you say', but these people are basically destitute after they have crossed. In reference the crime rate for Italians over 65 in the study is .6%. So If migrants are such terrible criminals you might want to start locking up specific age groups next.
My issue isn't with fighting terrorism, my issue is in the misrepresentation of migration and refugees.
An illegal is someone that comes illegally in a country and has no right to stay. Like mexicans that cross the US border. Refugees also come illegally but then they have the rights to stay.
Your data can be applied to other european countries, a lot of illegals here disappear before asking the refugee status. In our prisons almost 33% of the convicted criminals are foreigners, while italy has only a tiny percentage of residents that are foreingers or citizens with foreign origins. European countries like germany take only the refugees, not any illegal, at the border with france there's a city called Ventimiglia in which a significant number of illegals is gathered trying everyday to cross the border and enter France, and of course french police tries to stop them. Uk stopped the illegals gathered in the Calais Jungle. No one would take in an illegal.
We don't want to become like germany, the netherlands or france, which are becoming militarized nations in a permanent state of emergency like israel and with far rights groups near to the numbers that can grant them the election.
Other countries like holland have a significant application number compared to the italian case, and guess what? Politicians like wilders are growing stronger and stronger. The presence of a huge number of illegals and a vast muslim community that demands to change the country where it lives in a muslim oriented one are two different but huge problems, that both lead to the formation of active terrorists in europe. Ignoring or minimizing them it's only making those problems stronger.
Fighting terrorism means nothing if we don't solve the problem, which is the islamic radicalization in europe. You can kill as many bin ladens as you want, there will always be new terroristic groups if islamic fanatisms remain strong.
Blackie wrote: An illegal is someone that comes illegally in a country and has no right to stay. Like mexicans that cross the US border. Refugees also come illegally but then they have the rights to stay.
Your data can be applied to other european countries, a lot of illegals here disappear before asking the refugee status. In our prisons almost 33% of the convicted criminals are foreigners, while italy has only a tiny percentage of residents that are foreingers or citizens with foreign origins. European countries like germany take only the refugees, not any illegal, at the border with france there's a city called Ventimiglia in which a significant number of illegals is gathered trying everyday to cross the border and enter France, and of course french police tries to stop them. Uk stopped the illegals gathered in the Calais Jungle. No one would take in an illegal.
My issue with you classifying people as illegals is that you don't seem to realize there is a world of difference between how Mexicans in the US are and move around as illegals and how people crossing the Mediterranean do so. Mexicans do so by crossing the border unnoticed or on tourist visas. People crossing the Mediterranean do so in tiny boats arriving on tiny islands, after which the authorities give them medical attention, register them and ship them off to mainland Italy or Greece. There is my first issue with you calling on some unknown number of illegals entering and disappearing into the EU, we give them the opportunity to disappear, they don't exactly D-Day the beaches of France and Italy to run off into the woods. Second, someone illegally entering the country does not equal not having a right to stay. Like you said, refugees are also illegals and only after a review of their status and story can we actually say who has and who hasn't have the right.
Again, just because illegals disappear before asking for refugee status doesn't mean that European countries don't have a good idea of how many people are actually entering the EU, most enter in the extremely controlled environment of a small island from which they move on with the help of the authorities. Even the huge groups of people moving to the Balkans to Hungary first had to filter through Greece.
Your prison statistics are extremely misleading. 33% sounds like a huge number, but look at the breakdown of that 33%. From the end of 2015:
So far, Italy’s prison population hasn’t begun to reflect the migrant crisis. The largest group of foreign migrants behind bars are from Morocco, reflecting a diaspora to Italy that more than doubled between 1998 and 2012 to nearly a half-million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Romanians make up the second-largest pool of foreign convicts; an estimated 1 million Romanians immigrated to Italy in search of jobs over the last decade. Inmates from Tunisia and Albania are also numerous in Italian prisons..
Not exactly the people crossing the Mediterranean in boats right? Unless only the Tunisian migrants that cross the Mediterranean are the actual problem, but I hardly believe criminal statistics can be so closely linked to just a single nationality crossing. So you know, what happens at the French border or Calais is exactly what happens to refugees. The reason the police stop these people is because technically they don't have the right to enter until their paperwork is finished in their country of entry, i.e. Italy. The EU-Turkey deal meanwhile assures that for everyone arriving on Greek shores it is a quick trip back to Turkey, we currently exchange two illegals for one documented refugee. This is without verifying if those two we exchange are refugees themselves though! The reason we block people from just crossing borders whenever they want is A. we can't keep track of them otherwise and B. cynical countries thinking its just better for the other ones to sort out the mess.
Blackie wrote: We don't want to become like germany, the netherlands or france, which are becoming militarized nations in a permanent state of emergency like israel and with far rights groups near to the numbers that can grant them the election. Other countries like holland have a significant application number compared to the italian case, and guess what? Politicians like wilders are growing stronger and stronger. The presence of a huge number of illegals and a vast muslim community that demands to change the country where it lives in a muslim oriented one are two different but huge problems, that both lead to the formation of active terrorists in europe. Ignoring or minimizing them it's only making those problems stronger.
Fighting terrorism means nothing if we don't solve the problem, which is the islamic radicalization in europe. You can kill as many bin ladens as you want, there will always be new terroristic groups if islamic fanatisms remain strong.
This is just gibberish. How are Germany, the Netherlands or France anything like Isreal? France might fit your state of emergency talk. But this isn't anywhere near the case for the Netherlands or Germany, but I'm guessing you're talking from personal experience right? And it is hardly militarized, leaving aside the fact that France has a different system to the two others that would have been considered a bit more strict to begin with. I also like how you claim we are some kind of far right hel holes that give those parties power. Wilders has lost in voting share since 2010, way before the migrant/refugee crisis, he just isn't a viable alternative. The AfD in Germany is still very much a fringe party that will be happy if it makes the election threshold, and Le Pen has been around for ages as well, with no indication she is going to win this time around. If you look at Italy with the Lega Nord you have a party that is basically calling half of the Italians lazy parasites and wanting an independent North and less migrants. People living in glass houses should be a bit more nuanced about far right parties before throwing stones.
You also have no idea what Muslims want. Most Muslims in the Netherlands, Germany and France are perfectly decent people that are happen to live in a Western democracy. Just because they don''t want to be forced to give up every aspect of their culture or religion under xenophobic and populist pressure does not in anyway mean that they want to turn this into a Muslim country. This is such a tired argument about 'ebil Muslims' coming to subvert the Western world. Are some of them actually bad people? Sure, but so are ethnically Dutch, French or German citizens. Also 7% Muslims in France in one of the highest numbers in Europe, how this is a 'vast' Muslim community is beyond me. We don't ignore the problems of radicalization, but this is also in great deal caused by lack of integration and inherent racism that is as much caused by our individual states. Look at the European born kids and barely adults that have gone to fight in Syria and what their reasons were. They aren't religiously indoctrinated fanatics but children too stupid to realize what they are getting themselves into, complaining there is no wifi and such but trying to find a place in which they belong. Of course those people are dumb as rocks (enough media exposure about how horrible it is) and some actually do know what they are getting themselves into, but these represent 0.0001% of our Muslim populations. Your blanket statements on Muslims and illegals on the other hand sure do make the problems of terrorism stronger by demonizing large parts of innocent society.
Fighting terrorism means nothing if we demonize and criminalize large groups of citizens who just happen to have the same religion. Just like Hybrid said, they also happen to have a penis, it doesn't mean the vast majority of us are ok with rapists running around that just happen to share that one distinction with us. Most Islamic terror organization kill more Muslims than anyone else. Islamic terrorism in Europe has nowhere near reached the level of socialist terrorism we once had, and we have managed just fine without going all McCharthy on the left wing electorate in Europe. Stopping radicalisation is on both sides of society, but it sure will be helpful if we drop the racism inherent in the system that leads to higher unemployment and lower education rates amongst these people and stop the BS narrative of they are coming to take our liberties away and convert us all.
Well to be honest many of the illegals that came by the sea are actually from morocco, algeria or tunisia, even anis amri, the killer of german market, was a tunisian that crossed the mediterranean sea. You talk about what muslims want, but many people I met that were from northern european countries, including holland, had no real relationships with these people. French banlieus, molenbeek, birmingham, rotterdam are not the perfect example of decent people that want to live in a western democracy.
You are basically justifying muslims that turn into terrorists, saying that they are stupid or they have no choice, in italy there are millions that live in regions ruled by mafia groups, where the state has no power at all, kids that born there have little chances to avoid being part of the mafia system too, but no one justify them here, there are also people that die because they want to change things and many other that live making huge sacrifices in order to live honestly. If a muslim turns into a terrorist it's entirely his/her fault, especially if he/she's born in europe and not in the third world.
I've told several times that I'm not against muslims, I'm against those muslim communities that live with their rules and hate western societies. Believe me or not there are a lot of them, even in your country, which actually host the capital of eurabia.
You underestimate le pen, akesson or wilders, like people underestimated trump. Politicians like these ones would have got 100.000 votes 10 years ago, now there are millions that voted for them. If things continue this way they would have great chances to win and rule their countries.
Can someone explain to me why Blackie continue to pretend he doesn't want to have strong far-right parties when he says stuff that even most far-right party wouldn't dare to say, like:
Blackie wrote: but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
Also can someone explain why the mods have no problem with this comment?
In any case, he didn't "lose influence", he gained it. He simply didn't gain as much as was predicted. i.e. His gains were overestimated.
Ok, take it from the Dutch person. Wilders lost influence. In 2010 he got 15.4% (24 seats) of the vote. This year he got 13.1% (20). He lost plain and simple, the only way he gained 5 seats is because in 2012 almost everyone blamed him for failing government and causing new elections. His party has not gained the popularity it had upon being founded. Gaining a couple of seats is in no way significant and the fact that he won only 5 seats mean he lost influence. Even after Trump, Brexit and terror attacks (as well as Erdogan calling us Nazi's days before the elections) he just can't climb to a significant number of seats anymore. People have lost confidence in Wilders' ability to actually achieve anything and almost every large party has ruled out forming a government with him. He lost influence plain and simple.
Blackie wrote: Well to be honest many of the illegals that came by the sea are actually from morocco, algeria or tunisia, even anis amri, the killer of german market, was a tunisian that crossed the mediterranean sea. You talk about what muslims want, but many people I met that were from northern european countries, including holland, had no real relationships with these people. French banlieus, molenbeek, birmingham, rotterdam are not the perfect example of decent people that want to live in a western democracy.
You are basically justifying muslims that turn into terrorists, saying that they are stupid or they have no choice, in italy there are millions that live in regions ruled by mafia groups, where the state has no power at all, kids that born there have little chances to avoid being part of the mafia system too, but no one justify them here, there are also people that die because they want to change things and many other that live making huge sacrifices in order to live honestly. If a muslim turns into a terrorist it's entirely his/her fault, especially if he/she's born in europe and not in the third world.
I've told several times that I'm not against muslims, I'm against those muslim communities that live with their rules and hate western societies. Believe me or not there are a lot of them, even in your country, which actually host the capital of eurabia.
You underestimate le pen, akesson or wilders, like people underestimated trump. Politicians like these one would have got 100.000 votes 10 years ago, now there are millions that voted for them. If things continue this way they would have great chances to win and rule their countries.
Ok, so now we have you saying we have masses of illegals crossing over without ever getting noted down in official records. You have not provided any solid statistics besides those provided by the same places you get your 'savages' comments from I gather. I'm so glad your anecdotal evidence of a handful of terror attacks and people from a country you couldn't even spell properly have provided you insight in broad trends none of the security experts have picked up on. Have you ever been in Molenbeek, Rotterdam Zuid or the Schilderswijk in the Hague? I have and I can tell you most people there are just trying to live their lives and are not busy trying to subvert Western democracy. We only have fringe parties such as Sharia for Belgium that have virtually no popular support to ever participate in elections. Provide me with some evidence that is not in Italian or fething calling cities like Rotterdam 'Eurabia' (I have spend a great deal of my life in the city and around the region, believe me that your article is a load of bs, I mean the 'mayor is Muslim'? What the feth is wrong with this piece of gak right wing author, everybody loves this mayor as one of the most moderate politicians!) if you want to have a serious discussion, or I can just start throwing around a bunch of Dutch sources that say you're completely wrong. I have provided you with German crime statistics and immigration numbers and even undermined your 33% and criminal illegal foreigner claims.
I'm not at all justifying terrorism, I'm acknowledging the structural political, social and economic issues that lead to terrorism. You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society? Like you're claiming about Muslim society? No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into. Keeping kids away from these organizations is an important part in solving this. If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.
You aren't against Muslims, yet you keep saying things like 'vast Muslim communities' in Europe, 'eurabia' and 'savages' wanting to undermine our society. When you say things like that its hard to believe you're all that reasonable regarding Muslims in Europe and the world. It comes across as Trump claiming hes not racist
I don't underestimate these politicians at all. Look at my other response on this page regarding Wilders. Furthermore, Le Pen is nothing new, to think she suddenly gets a massive amount of support from some magical new place is just playing ignorant, she is in no way projected to win. The same goes for the German AfD, we just have to wait if they are even able to get past the 5% threshold. Where is the logic behind them suddenly winning if they couldn't for over a decade? Trump was a one off wildcard, these people have been part of the political establishment for years. Wilders had a different party precede him that collapsed and Le Pen has had her racist as feth father in politics for decades. Why will they suddenly get 'great chances'?
You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society?
Actually yes, my country is a perfect example of corruption at any political level and a perfect place for criminals, many italians are into the mafia system because it's appealing and/or grants an easier future.
No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into.
When did I say that? I always said to fight radicalization in europe and never talked about killing someone or deport all the muslims, you are the one that was brainwashed. And you totally lack of respect, people that offend someone that thinks differently shouldn't deserve any reply, I would never say to you or that frenchmen that is an idiot.
Do you actually know people that are immigrants or with foreign origins? Like I said before many people talk in general but despite a huge number of foreigners or of foreign origins they only have relationships between "pure blood". I grew up with people that are from north africa or sons/daughters of african immigrants, some of them muslims. I also met people from albania, ivory coast, ukraine or china in my life, never considered them strangers or different. I actually know people from different cultures and religions, I never said they're an issue and should go away. I only said to not tolerate radicalisms and to deport the illegals, as they're are not needed here and we should invest in their countries instead.
And those "kids" only regret the comfort they had in europe or they get scared when they deal with a real war, the recruits offrered them a perspective of life that is a lie, a wife they never get, etc.... but they don't regret the concept of the islamic state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.
I'm not ok with murderers released after a set amount of time, they should belong to prison till they breathe.
If they kill someone it's too late, most of the times we could have prevented those murders. The killer of the german's market for example was known to the german police and they had intel that he could make a terror attack months before he actually did it.
You can bring all the articles, numbers and statistics you like to show, it doesn't change the fact that we live in a world that seems to consider normal islamic terrorism in europe. Be critique towards your sources too, remember that in koln on 2015-2016 new year's eve over 1000 of sexual attacks and robberies were made and meda released the news only 10-15 days later as they didn't want the citizens to know about it.
My biggest fear is not a europe under sharia, it's a europe with far right politicians at the power. I hope you're right about le pen or wilders or the ones that will come after them, but wait for some other attack in germany, france and maybe your country and let's see if those politicians won't get the votes they need to rule.
You have to be absolutely stupid, desperate or brainwashed to do these kinds of things that take away your life and future. The fact that you keep bringing up the maffia is a perfect example, if the maffia is so evil, why are so many Italians signing up for it? Is there something inherently evil in Italian society?
Actually yes, my country is a perfect example of corruption at any political level and a perfect place for criminals, many italians are into the mafia system because it's appealing and/or grants an easier future.
No, there are issues you have to acknowledge before you can start solving the problem unless your solution is just kill them all and let God sort them out kind of attitude. Most of these kids that turn into terrorists and go to Syria almost immediately regret it, there has been research done on this. These people for the most part don't realize at all what they are getting into.
When did I say that? I always said to fight radicalization in europe and never talked about killing someone or deport all the muslims, you are the one that was brainwashed. Those "kids" only regret the comfort they had in europe or they get scared when they deal with a real war, the recruits offrered them a perspective of life that is a lie, a wife they never get, etc.... but they don't regret the concept of the islamic state.
Just to be clear, the 'you have to be stupid, brainwashed etc.' was directed at people considering to be a professional terrorist for a rewarding career, not you as a person. Also I hope your Italian comment is sarcasm. If you truly believe that Italians are inherently drawn to the maffia because of your culture, Italy should immediately stop exporting these vast Italian communities to the rest of the world who want nothing to do with these professional criminals trying to undermine our Western justice system for their criminal goals. (fun fact, for some reason Italian mobsters seem to like hiding in the Netherlands)
You implied I was justyfying terrorism, I was not. I'm arguing that there is a need to understand why these things happen. You're implication that wanting to understand the reasoning is justification makes you seem favourable to a single approach. If you look at research provided on the matter of young people travelling to Syria it is also a matter of adventure and excitement. Imagine a place that offers you all the things you ever wanted out of life and you never got in your country of birth, doesn't that sound great? Of course this is ignorant and not a little stupid, but these kids are disillusioned with their place in society and no less disillusioned when they finally get to Syria, where the actual terrorists see them as useful cannon fodder. Lets try to understand and fix the things that make these people want to go do this, cause they certainly don't start off as a full grown terrorist when they get born.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If they get recruited but haven't done anything to kill anyone yet, shouldn't we try rehabilitate these people into regular society instead of putting them in places like Guantanamo. Why are we ok with murderers being released after a set amount of time but just being labeled a terrorist makes you irredeemable? If they kill people, by all means punish them, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they aren't that different from regular murderers from other criminal organizations.
I'm not ok with murderers released after a set amount of time, they should belong to prison till they breathe.
If they kill someone it's too late, most of the times we could have prevented those murders. The killer of the german's market for example was known to the german police and they had intel that he could make a terror attack months before he actually did it.
You can bring all the articles, numbers and statistics you like to show, it doesn't change the fact that we live in a world that seems to consider normal islamic terrorism in europe. Be critique towards your sources too, remember that in koln on 2015-2016 new year's eve over 1000 of sexual attacks and robberies were made and meda released the news only 10-15 days later as they didn't want the citizens to know about it.
My biggest fear is not a europe under sharia, it's a europe with far right politicians at the power. I hope you're right about le pen or wilders or the ones that will come after them, but wait for some other attack in germany, france and maybe your country and let's see if those politicians won't get the votes they need to rule.
As Western society we believe in being able to rehabilitate even murderers, this is just something we sort of have agreed upon, ymmv of course. But I certainly object to Western governments treating people differently just because we call them a terrorist (before something serious happens). The issue is that its incredible difficult to know when someone is going to act and in the case of Berlin the intelligence agencies might have decided that it was prudent not to act yet, as other more valuable information or leads might be lost. Why they didn't prevent it is a difficult question and one there will be little to no answer on.
We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?
Seriously man, as the guy who linked me an 'Eurabia' article about my country with some of the most vile assumptions and lies I have seen written, critiquing me on my use of sources comes across as laughable. I remember Köln very well, I also remember that however horrible that was, it was only one single event. Köln is an abnormality like the size of 9/11 or shooting down flight MH17. These things just don't happen with any kind of frequency to make a huge deal out of it. Besides the argument it took 10-15 days before media reported on it is just untrue, most picked it up right after new year weekend on the 4th and the 5th when reports started coming in, I can show you if you truly insist on the 10-15 day narrative. I won't even start to respond to the 'didn't want the citizens to know about it', if you're going so far down the rabbit hole that both the government and media are teaming up to lie to us about things like this, there is no space for reasonable discussion based on facts and sources.
If your biggest fear is far right politicians, perhaps stop giving far right media with 'Eurabia' claims anymore of a platform by spreading the kind of disinformation that these politicians feed on. For someone being afraid of this you seem very badly informed on the state of far right parties and the political situations in the countries you keep talking about. Look at political trends and background, read moderate media and look at data that the governments provide. Don't fear a Europe with far right politicians, fight it, help educate people around you about the dangers, be critical! Regardless, we have seen the polls after massive attacks in France and smaller ones in Germany, so far it does not translate into a victory for Le Pen or Wilders. We don't have to necessarily wait for an attack, people are actively expecting it to happen any day in most European countries. People who are actually afraid enough to vote for Le Pen after a terror attack are probably already not objectively looking at politics anymore and most likely already in her camp.
Sure, go ahead, insult me.
In the meantime I'll just post more about “those savages that couldn't serve any other purpose than being human guinea pig in a lab”, here comes a few links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Baharvand
He has given numerous invited talks and tutorials. He is the editor of four international books which were published by Springer (2010 and 2012) and John Wiley, USA (2015). He has published 252 international [6] and 100 national peer-reviewed papers, as well as seven chapters in international books, seven books in Persian, and eight translated English text books into Persian.
As of February 2016, Google Scholar reports over 5100 citations and h-index 37 to his work.[7] He is currently the editorial board member of eight international journals (e.g., Journal of Biological Chemistry[8] and Scientific Reports from Nature Publishing Group[9]). He holds two USA patents on the basis of his research. […]
In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) bestowed a special, one-time National Scientific Achievement Award on Rahbar in recognition of his discovery of HbA1c as a marker of glycemic status in persons with diabetes. The award is named after the awardee and is called the Samuel Rahbar Outstanding Discovery Award.
Syria fighters 'take control' of IS-held airbase near Raqqa
A US-backed force of Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters say they have taken full control of a key airbase held by the Islamic State group (IS) near Raqqa.
Its capture is seen as a significant step in the fight to drive the jihadists out of the city, which has become their de facto capital.
Talal Sello, a spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), said they had seized Tabqa airport from militants.
The Kurdish-led fighters are continuing to advance towards the city itself.
However, civilian rights groups have expressed safety concerns for citizens still living in the area.
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said coalition air strikes have killed at least 89 civilians over the past week.
The capture of the military airport is the first major success for the SDF since the US-led coalition airlifted its fighters to place them behind IS lines last week, the BBC's Arab affairs editor Sebastian Usher reports.
The Tabqa airbase was seized by IS militants in 2014 from the Syrian army. The jihadists then carried out one of their worst atrocities - a mass execution of captured soldiers.
Its capture by SDF fighters was part of an offensive aimed at also taking control of the Tabqa dam - the largest in Syria - as well as Tabqa town.
More factional warfare to come though. As I would expect pro Assad forces to attempt actions to retake the airport and tabqa dam.
We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?
I think all the things you listed here are (or were) issues not impossible to solve. Left wing terror and IRA attacks are gone, mass shootings in the US CAN be prevented or at least extremely limited. I don't accept the concept of a modern society, a democracy, with terrorism as a sadly part of its life. Maybe in africa or asia, not here. An harsher society doesn't mean a militarized one, which is something that I don't want. But to punish and prevent (any) crimes in a more efficient way would make the society a better place and maybe you are willing to let someone perish in your country as a good deal to keep the society as you like, I'm not. Those people that died, and the many others that were badly injuried are not numbers.
Italian society is extremely corrupted and thousands are in the mafia system, that's not mean that every italian is linked to mafia. If I say send back the illegals it does not mean that I want to expel anyone that is not from EU, and if I say we should not tolerate radicalism means that I'm against radicalized people and communities (that don't belong to any democracy), not muslims. You seem not able to distinguish those cases.
You are justifying terrorism IMHO as you're basically saying that they choose that way because society doesn't offer a future to some minorities and that's not true, the point is there aren't enough rooms for everyone, that's the ugly truth that people like you don't want to accept. People that belong to a minority have the same chance of success than others, they have to work hard and deserve their success though, because a democracy and a fair society doesn't award someone because of his/her origins but because his/her competence.
Take one of the bruxelles airport's terrorists: his brother is a taekwondo athlete that also represented belgium at the olympic games. People chose their way of living.
We don't necessarily think terrorism is normal, its just sadly a part of life in certain parts of the world, such as left wing terror in the 70's/80's, the IRA or mass shootings in the US. We are willing to let a few people perish so we don't have to live in an absolute police state. Could a harsher society prevent more attacks? Maybe, but are we willing to live in such a society?
I think all the things you listed here are (or were) issues not impossible to solve. Left wing terror and IRA attacks are gone, mass shootings in the US CAN be prevented or at least extremely limited. I don't accept the concept of a modern society, a democracy, with terrorism as a sadly part of its life. Maybe in africa or asia, not here. An harsher society doesn't mean a militarized one, which is something that I don't want. But to punish and prevent (any) crimes in a more efficient way would make the society a better place and maybe you are willing to let someone perish in your country as a good deal to keep the society as you like, I'm not. Those people that died, and the many others that were badly injuried are not numbers.
Italian society is extremely corrupted and thousands are in the mafia system, that's not mean that every italian is linked to mafia. If I say send back the illegals it does not mean that I want to expel anyone that is not from EU
Exactly, left wing terror and insurrection throughout the world went on for decades. Islamic terror has been around for a few decades too, but nothing says that it will be impossible to fix or limited in the future. The amount of people dying to Islamic terrorism is already on the decline cause its heyday was during the 2003-2008 period in Iraq when there were daily attacks killing hundreds of thousands to even perhaps a million. The numbers we see today while tragic just don't hold up against those of the previous decade.
You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.
Again you brought up 'vast Muslim communities', if as you say Italians are involved in the maffia I'm going to claim vast Italian communities. See how annoying it is when people just make blanket statements like that? Furthermore the EU already does send back illegals. You know why Italy couldn't deport Amri after his prison time in Italy? Its because Tunisia said no, this leaves us in an awkward diplomatic spot where we can't just drop illegals of in no-mans land.
Blackie wrote: I say we should not tolerate radicalism means that I'm against radicalized people and communities (that don't belong to any democracy), not muslims. You seem not able to distinguish those cases.
I'm sorry, you aren't against Muslims? Again when you make comments like 'vast Muslim communities' wanting to overthrown society and link to racist as feth authors calling Rotterdam 'Eurabia' for things like just having a Muslim for a mayor I don't think you can claim the high ground between what I am and aren't able to distinguish against. I very much make this distinction, but it seems your comprehension of my argument is lacking as we go into the next clusterfeth:
Blackie wrote: You are justifying terrorism IMHO as you're basically saying that they choose that way because society doesn't offer a future to some minorities and that's not true, the point is there aren't enough rooms for everyone, that's the ugly truth that people like you don't want to accept. People that belong to a minority have the same chance of success than others, they have to work hard and deserve their success though, because a democracy and a fair society doesn't award someone because of his/her origins but because his/her competence.
Take one of the bruxelles airport's terrorists: his brother is a taekwondo athlete that also represented belgium at the olympic games. People chose their way of living.
I never justified terrorism. The fact that I look at the institutional and societal issues that provide a feeding ground for terrorist recruitment does not mean I justify terrorism at all. Any intelligent person will tell you that if you take away the root of a problem, frequently the problem will disappear too. These people frequently chose the path of terror because they are disillusioned with our society for whatever reason, and racism is still a part of the system, making it overall harder for them to achieve regular succes like kids with a European sounding name. I accept the ugly truth, but I see no reason to make it uglier for arguments' sake. We do have to solve the issues of terrorism, but those issues don't stop at just locking up these people and preventing attacks, we have to be proactive. Your claim that minorities have the same chance of succes is as ridiculous as people claiming women have equal chances to men. There has been tons of research done to the point where the Dutch government is considering it illegal to put your name on your CV to prevent institutional racism from just rejecting applicants with a foreign sounding name. You're completely right we don't award someone for their origins as Western society, but we sure as hell reject them for it.
So your argument basically is, look at how his brother did? His brother is a completely different person who's chances of succes and succes in life do not in any way affect his brother. Can you right here and now prove to me that the brother who committed these attacks got exactly the same amount of respect and opportunities as his athlete brother? People chose their own future, but what we need to look into is how and why they made these choices, not just at the result. Stopping terrorism without looking at how they got to that future is basically useless.
hmm much as Syria is a soverign country scuds are unless vastly uograded kinda accurate as a musket ...
patriot batteries/Davids Silng, iron dome And Iron beam plus arrow missiles. any conflict of bombardment might not be as effective as before.
though a dangerous ante up.
Israel have probably done what they needed to. I said earlier ITT that Israel were probably posturing for internal consumption (threatening to destroy Syrias AD network). I stand by that. Syria are in the same position, Israel did what they needed to, Syria got lucky. Now Assads regime can posture after the fact.
Although sending a message via Russia ups the Ante a wee bit.
You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.
I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.
At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical. You don't seem to accept that those terrorists mostly belong to muslims communities, and that's not mean that the entire community is radical and helps terrorists. But things like hate preachers or salatiftes speechs in public squares can't be tolerated, and some countries in the name of political correctness close its eyes. There are swimming pools in some countries that force men and women to be separate because muslims complained that they can't be together as they consider it inappropriate, but if they can't bear that men and women can share some entertaining activities together I'm sorry, they aren't going to have a place in a democracy. When in koln german women were harassed by foreigners Sami Abu-Yusu, the milan's imam (not a hate preacher or a terrorist, but a simple imam, very popular and respected among milan's islamic community), said that happened because women wear perfume and tight dresses and those men couldn't do anything to prevent their desire to grope them. Those concepts are all linked to radicalization and accepting that people that think like that are not a problem and they shouldn't be educated to live properly in a western society is exactly the reason why some of them turn into terrorists at a certain point of their life. There are people that live in very difficult areas but usually, if they fail to find a room in their society, they turn into criminals not into terrorists, if they do it's because we had tolerated some hate preachers doing their speechs in the name of freedom of thoughts.
The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.
Fighting terrorism means nothing, as terrorism is not the problem, is the consquence of the problem which is islamic radicalization, and this must be cancelled in a modern society. You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all. You probably think that terrorism can't be defeated unless we live in a sort of big brother with no human rights, I think it's possible in a democratic way.
A problem with everything you've written there is. "itati ok n Required."
There are jerky countries out there I'm sure of it but that's not religions fault, that's the fault of whatever group is in power using religion, division and separation as suitable tools to retain power and divert peoples attention.
"Latveria murders any child named Reed, John or Ben."
Becomes "some countries kill people based solely on their names, people in America, UK and Italy live on gear because of their names."
I feel this needs to be at the bottom of every single post in this thread.
The vast, vast majority of people murdered by Isis are Muslim.
I think it might actually be possible to say that religion has never been responsible for any deaths. Yeah, seems a crazy statement but here me out.
It's always some charismatic jerk, or group of charismatic jerks who have re allowed that they can use some other persona beliefs to their own ends to achieve their own personal goals. Whether that belief is religion, politics, using the bathroom or football teams. It's because some ahole has found something to take advantage of people over and they stand to gain from it, somehow, in some way.
think it might actually be possible to say that religion has never been responsible for any deaths. Yeah, seems a crazy statement but here me out.
It's always some charismatic jerk, or group of charismatic jerks who have re allowed that they can use some other persona beliefs to their own ends to achieve their own personal goals. Whether that belief is religion, politics, using the bathroom or football teams. It's because some ahole has found something to take advantage of people over and they stand to gain from it, somehow, in some way.
You're right, it is crazy.
My counter argument to your counter argument is that in many cases if not every case, Religions are often founded by said charismatic jerks (depending on the religion). Can anyone here honestly say that Mohammad himself was not a charismatic and violent medieval Warlord who used religious conviction for his own ends?
You say Religion is hijacked by charismatic jerks for their own ends. I say they founded and wrote the rulebook for Religion.
Anyway...have you heard of the Aztecs? Human sacrifice was a fundamental part of their religion.
And you do realise that Islamic Sharia Law carries the death penalty for a whole range of crimes? How does that not equate to Religion being responsible for Death?
And you do realise that Islamic Sharia Law carries the death penalty for a whole range of crimes? How does that not equate to Religion being responsible for Death?
And do you realize that Sharia Law is one of the most vague things in Islam? everyone has their own interpretation, because Sharia law is based on interpreting God's will and there is no such thing as God's approved Sharia FAQ.
You say you don't want a militarized society, which is not what a police state is. Preventing crimes means giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies more room to invade a citizen's personal space, where do you draw the line on prevention? Who can say we don't do enough on prevention already? For someone claiming that we have to stop 'vast Muslim communities' from changing our Western culture you sure do seem to be easily influenced by a small amount of terror attacks to up the security and monitoring of civilians to prevent such attacks. Don't you see how you contradict yourself, unless you claim you're only ok with society moving into the direction of your image? Those people that died aren't number, but I have had friends and family taken from me by diseases and accidents that are sadly just a part of life. Banning cars for example or medical research might have prevented their deaths (which for the record kill far more people then terrorism in Europe), but I see no one seriously advocating much more funding for research or banning cars as opposed to banning all refugees and more money to intelligence. Try to be objective, an emotional response is exactly what terrorism wants because it doesn't have the scale to affect change by any other means.
I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.
We have done almost everything possible to bring down traffic deaths but at one point we just have to accept that it will be impossible to reduce the amount of deaths to zero. Think of it like this, most people would balk at just sacrificing a few thousand people each year at a temple for economic prosperity, yet the car is the altar on which these sacrifices are made for our economy and way of life. In just the Netherlands alone, one to two years of traffic deaths outnumber almost two decades of Islamic terror in Europe. Why are we prepared to give up so many liberties and invasion of privacy to save these people while for example we don't regularly install breathalyzers or speed caps on cars? Its because in the end we don't consider the trade off worth it yet every time there is a terrorist attack we give intelligence agencies a little more power over our society.
Blackie wrote: At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical.
Man, its like you're trying to flip generalizing against Muslims on me, let me remind you of some of the things you kept saying:
Blackie wrote: Force muslims to really become part of society by making them abandon some of their typical way of living..
EVERY terrorist in europe is a muslim or a person that comes from a muslim country or a european with origins from a muslim country..
Eurabia
Blackie wrote: You don't seem to accept that those terrorists mostly belong to muslims communities, and that's not mean that the entire community is radical and helps terrorists. But things like hate preachers or salatiftes speechs in public squares can't be tolerated, and some countries in the name of political correctness close its eyes. There are swimming pools in some countries that force men and women to be separate because muslims complained that they can't be together as they consider it inappropriate, but if they can't bear that men and women can share some entertaining activities together I'm sorry, they aren't going to have a place in a democracy. When in koln german women were harassed by foreigners Sami Abu-Yusu, the milan's imam (not a hate preacher or a terrorist, but a simple imam, very popular and respected among milan's islamic community), said that happened because women wear perfume and tight dresses and those men couldn't do anything to prevent their desire to grope them. Those concepts are all linked to radicalization and accepting that people that think like that are not a problem and they shouldn't be educated to live properly in a western society is exactly the reason why some of them turn into terrorists at a certain point of their life. There are people that live in very difficult areas but usually, if they fail to find a room in their society, they turn into criminals not into terrorists, if they do it's because we had tolerated some hate preachers doing their speechs in the name of freedom of thoughts.
Terrorists come from every walk of life in society. We have had anarchists, socialist and right wing violence in Europe. Pretending that terrorism in Europe is some sort of new thing or that Islamic terrorism is going to be around forever is mighty facetious. We tend to crack down on hate speeches by Muslims and at the same time have far right protests and politicians giving us the same amount of hate speech. WE tolerate both these things to the fullest extent of the law and prosecute both sides for their excesses. What example of political correctness can you give me that was just free to preach forever? Furthermore, did you know there are bathrooms in countries that separate men and women because some Christians can't tolerate being together in that space (see how I use 'some' where you do not, that's how you avoid generalizing) because then sexual assault and stuff? I'm sorry, but if they can't bear men and women sharing a basic human function together then they don't have a place in a democracy (Am I Doing it right?). We have to reform and change those attitudes, progress will march onward whether hyper conservative states like it or not, even in Saudi Arabia you can see examples of women protesting against it nowadays, attitudes change, but time is needed. To say most Muslims in Europe aren't well adjusted is not true.
Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147
Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.
The court in Turin ruled last month that the woman saying "enough" to her colleague who allegedly attacked her was not a strong enough reaction to prove she had been sexually assaulted.
The alleged victim is now facing charges for slander, reports said.
I guess these kinds of things are all tied to Western rape culture. Cause these judges sure as hell weren't Muslims. So do both Western Muslims and 'regular' Westerners lack a certain respect towards women? Yes, in some cases both do! If this is the example we are showing the European Muslims of how to "be educated to live properly in a western society" were sure doing a grand job! Remember guys, its ok as long as she isn't being too loud!!! The disgusting attitude that only Muslims have some sort of perverted view on sexual violence is such a misleading argument, were all equally bad in that regard. I can keep going and link you to the case in my village of the Christian parents selling out their 15 year old daughter as a sex slave to 40 year olds if you want?
More is needed than just hate speech to turn a person into a terrorist. There needs to be the opportunity for that person to be susceptible to the ideology, and that frequently takes the form of perceived social or economic troubles.
Blackie wrote: The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.
Fighting terrorism means nothing, as terrorism is not the problem, is the consquence of the problem which is islamic radicalization, and this must be cancelled in a modern society. You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all. You probably think that terrorism can't be defeated unless we live in a sort of big brother with no human rights, I think it's possible in a democratic way.
This is exacly the problem with intelligence agencies. Once they have this type of access they will abuse it and share it with other law agencies. Just ask any American on this board how often police conduct unlawful searches of cars during traffic stops or go through other belongings without the right. Why in the hell should they just be granted acces to our phones too! Why not also our house or bank account if they think you might be a bad person for visiting a strange board called DakkaDakka and going into just the "ISIS" thread, maybe this is all just some secret code?
Again, Islamic radicalization is affected by a multitude of factors that all come down to the social and economic problems these people face growing up, getting an education and finding work. No one gets born as a religious extremist, unless your parents indoctrinate you. But in the end something has to set things in motion that allows this radicalization, something will have had to have happened to either the person or his parents/friends/family in life. I think this is very much possible, so stop with your BS of falsifying what I say with things like "You probably think that is not possible without banning every muslim from europe, I do, that's all." Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...' we can stop terrorism, it won't be easy, but they stopped the RAF in Germany and the FARC in Colombia, which took decades. There are no shortcuts and pretending it will be around forever is just flat out wrong. We have to adress the structural issues in society that give Islamic radicalization its feeding ground, take away the food and the beast will starve. I don't think at all Islamic terrorism is getting worse, like I said, the 2000's were worse. We are already heading slowly in the right direction, we don't need to take a hard turn on existing policies unless you can actually statistically prove its getting worse or a seriously larger issue. You putting words in my mouth without having a single clue about how the world works comes off as really rich though, nice horse you have there
hmm much as Syria is a soverign country scuds are unless vastly uograded kinda accurate as a musket ...
patriot batteries/Davids Silng, iron dome And Iron beam plus arrow missiles. any conflict of bombardment might not be as effective as before.
though a dangerous ante up.
Israel have probably done what they needed to. I said earlier ITT that Israel were probably posturing for internal consumption (threatening to destroy Syrias AD network). I stand by that. Syria are in the same position, Israel did what they needed to, Syria got lucky. Now Assads regime can posture after the fact.
Although sending a message via Russia ups the Ante a wee bit.
makes sense, but yeah sending it via Russia does give it somewhat a serious aspect.
Blackie wrote: At the same time fighting islamic radicalization does not mean going against every muslim unless you'r suggesting that every muslim is a radical.
You know, that seems very reasonable when you put it like that. Except with all the terrible stuff you said elsewhere it's hard to take you seriously on this…
Here is a good rule of thumbs. There are plenty of vocal ex-Muslims that are pretty active in fighting Islamists. Of course there are, I mean Islamists want them dead so…
They usually don't care about being politically correct. But still, they won't back racists and xenophobes, for obvious reasons.
So, to check if something is valuable attacks on Islamism or a terrible display of bigotry, a good way is to read what they have to say about it. And they will definitely tell you that you crossed the line on bigotry long ago, Mr Human-Guinea-Pig.
I'm reminded that i should read the Quran one day so i can further discuss my points. So I'll concede, not personally knowing further about the Muslim faith that i personally am unable to argue my point further. Smarter men than i can, of course. I imagine the answer will be related to the various versions of the faith, including i believe the extreme ends of wahabiism.
I saw an example earlier though on Twitter.
That's not an example of the Baptist flavour of Christianity. It Christianity as a whole. That's just some jerk with something to gain
Blackie wrote:I understand your points, I don't agree with them. The example of car accidents is enlightening, no one would suggest to ban cars but since those accidents kill thousands of people every year we really should do something important, maybe banning extremely fast vehicles as a car should serve one single purpose: to go from a place A to a place B, not to do a car race in the streets, or being harsher when drunk drivers are caught (banning them for driving for 10 years, maybe even jailing them) and also those ones who exceedes in velocity, educating citizen to respect the driving code. If you accept that thousands of people die in car accidents just because people die everyday, and don't think that most of those accidents can be prevented, we can't agree about anything.
I don't have the sources right now but if I remember correctly most islamic terrorism happens in the middle east (like nearly all of it) with some in Africa and the biggest chunk of it happens in Afghanistan and Iraq (and is a result of these wars). A comparison of car deaths and terrorism leaves you with really skewed numbers. I think it was something along the line of "you are 5000% more likely to die from a car hitting you (as a pedestrian) than you are to die of a terrorist attack" (in the wester developed world). If we had spend a fraction of the money we put into fighting "terrorism" into autonomous vehicle research and humanitarian aid for the regions in the middle east where terrorist "come from" (instead of bombing them to hell and back again) we probably would have few problems with both types of deaths (and that's not even including the US military deaths, PTSD, and suicides). One because of better self-driving cars and the other because we wouldn't have made so many terrorists directly and indirectly by destabilised the region even more. Right now Trump's accepting even more collateral damage while bombing than Obama. That surely won't help with the radicalisation problem :/
The impossibility to unlock phones that belonged to terrorists in the name of privacy is another absurd thing, that it needs to be dealt with.
You can't, either your encryption works or it doesn't, security through obscurity or other partly secure schemes just aren't secure. Then you have the "cloud" (meaning servers somewhere on the net) so the data you are looking for might not even be on the phone or be accessible through it. And it doesn't even matter because even if you have a backdoor into some service they can just use another one that's not compromised or get lost in the big haystack that is the internet. If I remember correctly the Paris terrorists simply used SMS for coordination/communication and did their initial planning offline. And look at the recent attack in London. It's one of the cities with the most CCTV cameras yet that didn't help with preventing the attack. Most of the "problems" you hear about from agencies/police only add help the spying agencies to collect more data while at the same time burying them in so much useless data that they they are accidentally poisoning their own dataset with it. Sifting through all that barely related data only slows down their actual work. But it sounds good because you can use it as an excuse after the fact and say you "tried everything".
Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147 Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.
This italian gem has caused a huge amount of backlash against that judge, which is typically a category that is quite hated in italy. An imam instead is a person that speaks to people and has great influence above them, what an imam thinks and says has certainly more weight. I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately. We're not going to defend and accept behaviour like this if they belong to common citizens but we're going to put our head under the sand if they come from a minority, because we fear to be branded as racists.
Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...'
Not muslims, radical muslims. I actually grew up with some people that happened to be muslims, none of them was radicalized, they all lived like anyone else, just with a different religion. Many northern europeans always talk about including the refugees in their societies, or how the muslim communities are misrepresented but they never had friends among that minorities, and they wouldn't hang out with those people. Many of these defenders of the minorities are actually among the most racists people I met, they do so only because they fear to be called for what they really are, racist people. I'm not referring to you, as I don't know anything about you, but I've met several of them, and it's the reason why in countries like yours, germany, sweden many crimes committed by these minorities are poorly covered and at the same time far right polititians have significant consense. Maybe they won't win the elections (yet) but here in Italy I've never seen polititians like le pen, akesson, wilders or even orban with more than 5-6 %.
Blackie wrote: but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
You're now arguing that a judge is not a person with a "great influence" over people. This thread is rapidly turning into a car-crash; I should look away, but morbid fascination keeps me coming back.
Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147 Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.
This italian gem has caused a huge amount of backlash against that judge, which is typically a category that is quite hated in italy. An imam instead is a person that speaks to people and has great influence above them, what an imam thinks and says has certainly more weight. I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately. We're not going to defend and accept behaviour like this if they belong to common citizens but we're going to put our head under the sand if they come from a minority, because we fear to be branded as racists.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're now arguing that a judge is not a person with a "great influence" over people.
Oh oh, here we already have AlmightyWalrus saying how ridiculous it is to claim a judge is not a person with 'great influence'. Judges are the people that have to uphold the constitutions and laws that are the foundation of our whole modern Western culture. All the progress we have achieved is based on these laws, to say someone who chooses how to employ these laws against those who break them/or complex legal societal issues doesn't have great influence is ridiculous (insert Supreme Court reference here). I mean its great this one case has generated so much backlash in Italy, but for how many we hear about do dozens go unnoticed because the victim just doesn't want to be put through hearing such things from a judge again? Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?
MADRID — Prosecutors said Friday they are investigating a Spanish archbishop for possible criminal hate speech because of remarks he made recently about the gay community.
The Valencia's provincial prosecutor's office said it was studying a recent speech made by Valencia Archbishop Antonio Canizares in which he said "powers such as the gay empire" promoted the rise of movements against the Christian family.
Canizares also hit out at feminists and gender ideology.
I mean 'Christian family', 'gay empire' and against feminists and 'gender ideology'? If this isn't massive code for only straight men need to apply (and white going off of previous remarks by this guy) I don't know what is. I wonder if he and that Italian Imam can get together to discuss women's rights, should be a blast.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...'
Not muslims, radical muslims. I actually grew up with some people that happened to be muslims, none of them was radicalized, they all lived like anyone else, just with a different religion. Many northern europeans always talk about including the refugees in their societies, or how the muslim communities are misrepresented but they never had friends among that minorities, and they wouldn't hang out with those people. Many of these defenders of the minorities are actually among the most racists people I met, they do so only because they fear to be called for what they really are, racist people. I'm not referring to you, as I don't know anything about you, but I've met several of them, and it's the reason why in countries like yours, germany, sweden many crimes committed by these minorities are poorly covered and at the same time far right polititians have significant consense. Maybe they won't win the elections (yet) but here in Italy I've never seen polititians like le pen, akesson, wilders or even orban with more than 5-6 %.
Ok this is just getting stupid. A. admit you didn't take any effort in posting non-generalizing or obvious racist information (again you linked me 'Eurabia') or B. your English is not sufficient to fully explain yourself without accusing me of the things you're doing. You have certainly accused or implied I was justifying terrorism and/or generalizing against Muslims and I have the quotes to back up that statement. You have given me nothing to back up your claims. Personally knowing people and claiming Northern Europeans anti-racists are actually racists is the weirdest high horse 'I have a black friend' rhetoric I have heard in a while on DakkaDakka. To say these crimes are poorly covered in the media is just plain out false, let me again repeat the German Federal Police report that media report that 25% of migrant/refugee crime is sexual assault while the actual number is 1%. If anything we have racist and right wing media over-reporting. Furthermore these politicians are driven by a mixture of platforms of nationalism, left wing economics and playing into the lowest common denominator/protest vote in each of these countries. Each country has its own issue and the effort we expended into keeping the EU and the Euro afloat against what occurred in Southern Europe certainly helped politicians like Le Pen or Wilders. Hating foreigners was just incidental until the refugee crisis put it largely on the map again. The main hate before was directed at citizens being different. The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.
Blackie wrote: but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.
Hes never going to own up to the things he has said and posted before. Points for him trying to flip it on me though
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.
This bears emphasizing. I'll use the Sweden Democrats as my example because it's the populist party I know the best. I don't think everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is a racist. I do, however, think that everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is one (or more of the following):
A: Ignorant of the fact that racism is the foundation of the party's entire view of human nature (and this is "culture is genetically inherited" racism, not "cultural racism", before anyone starts whining about me using a 40-year old term relevant to the field).
B: Ignorant of racism in general, as evidenced by the fact that people persistently keep claiming that the party isn't racist despite having a paragraph in their party manifesto (pg. 8 if anyone's interested) about how culture is genetically inherited and that people of different cultures thus can't ever live side by side because of genetic reasons.
C: Apathetic to the racism in the party. This is, I feel, the crucial point: a lot of people don't actively hate immigrants of foreigners, they just don't give a gak whether they die or not. When the racism of the party is pointed out, this segment of the voter base often overlaps with B, because they genuinely don't think they're racist, and thus feel obliged to defend the party.
D: A racist. They're there, I don't know how many, but dear God some people...
In either case, A, B, and C are all willing to overlook D being present and then become rather defensive when you point out that D is the reason their party exists in the first place.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.
This bears emphasizing. I'll use the Sweden Democrats as my example because it's the populist party I know the best. I don't think everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is a racist. I do, however, think that everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is one (or more of the following):
A: Ignorant of the fact that racism is the foundation of the party's entire view of human nature (and this is "culture is genetically inherited" racism, not "cultural racism", before anyone starts whining about me using a 40-year old term relevant to the field).
B: Ignorant of racism in general, as evidenced by the fact that people persistently keep claiming that the party isn't racist despite having a paragraph in their party manifesto (pg. 8 if anyone's interested) about how culture is genetically inherited and that people of different cultures thus can't ever live side by side because of genetic reasons.
C: Apathetic to the racism in the party. This is, I feel, the crucial point: a lot of people don't actively hate immigrants of foreigners, they just don't give a gak whether they die or not. When the racism of the party is pointed out, this segment of the voter base often overlaps with B, because they genuinely don't think they're racist, and thus feel obliged to defend the party.
D: A racist. They're there, I don't know how many, but dear God some people...
In either case, A, B, and C are all willing to overlook D being present and then become rather defensive when you point out that D is the reason their party exists in the first place.
I think you can put this into a wider European framework. This is all very applicable to European right wing parties. People say they vote for them because of their economic policies (which is basically saying "free money for everyone, we have no idea how we will ever pay for this!") and protecting the nations 'values and traditions'. Then people claim they aren't racist but these parties are so nonviable government wise and then comes the media attention to the things that daddy Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Höcke have screamed out at times that sure make the 'values and traditions' racist dog whistle seem more like a bullhorn and hard to deny. People suffer from serious 'head in the sand' syndrome when it comes to these parties believing that the right wing fairy tales could actually become true or that for some magical reason supporting the racist right wing will force other parties to move in that direction for their vote (it sort of worked in the U.S.). I think at least for the Netherlands that we have a serious problem in that we are not allowed to discuss these things properly without ourselves being called deplorable for calling out the 'deplorable' by those we criticize. For parties demonizing whole parts of society they certainly are thin-skinned when you question them and their victim complex, managed to squeeze in one more U.S. reference
Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?
I'd like to explain this: in my country prisons are extremely overcrowded and italy gets sanctions from the EU because the situation is not acceptable with the european standards. Our polititians don't want to invest money to solve this problem as we need a huge amount of money for many other basic things (not to mention that a significant number of our polititians are corrupted), that's why they impose judges to treat criminals in the most soft way they can. Which means charges dismissed in many cases (and rape trials are a perfect example of that), trials that are delayed, suspended/alternative sentences when it comes to actual convictions, and then significant reductions of sentences at appeals (the majority of the appelas comes with a reduction of the sentence discussed, regardless of the gravity of the crime committed). That's why there is the feeling that judges are usually too indulgent with criminals and they are not particularly beloved.
Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?
I'd like to explain this: in my country prisons are extremely overcrowded and italy gets sanctions from the EU because the situation is not acceptable with the european standards. Our polititians don't want to invest money to solve this problem as we need a huge amount of money for many other basic things (not to mention that a significant number of our polititians are corrupted), that's why they impose judges to treat criminals in the most soft way they can. Which means charges dismissed in many cases (and rape trials are a perfect example of that), trials that are delayed, suspended/alternative sentences when it comes to actual convictions, and then significant reductions of sentences at appeals (the majority of the appelas comes with a reduction of the sentence discussed, regardless of the gravity of the crime committed). That's why there is the feeling that judges are usually too indulgent with criminals and they are not particularly beloved.
You should give some of those criminals to the Netherlands, we have room to spare in our prisons and are renting them out to other nations. Why would judges not send violent offenders to prison or reduce sentences for criminals that commit theft for example, that seems to be a case of priorities being badly managed. If I look at statistics a good half of the prison population has committed non-violent crimes such as theft, robbery or drug possession. More to the point, this shows exactly how influential judges are, being able to decide who goes to prison and for how long. Even if there is less space in prison, the judiciary system is supposed to be independent of the legislative branch of government. Or are you saying that politicians can pressure judges into giving rapists reduced sentences due to prison overcrowding? In that case I think you have more to worry about than one Imam's hate speech. People don't hate their garbage man because he has no effect on their life, people do however hate public figures who can actually shape or influence parts of society in a multitude of ways, Imams and judges both can be placed in this category. But as those judges are actually in charge to judge on our laws and use them to decide who is guilty or innocent I think we should require higher standards of them than some fringe religious preacher, unless you can show me he went through the Italian state system to get certified just like this judge.
Manchu wrote: Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!
Don't look at me. I've been very careful not to say what I thought about some posts, though I've noticed a lack of the hammer coming down on some posts that make pretty much anything I have ever said on this forum look pretty mild.
BaronIveagh wrote: Been trying hard to avoid a ban by not responding to this. Manchu would freak if I post what I think about it.
I've been banned because:
“I gave you a warning for incendiary language, which 'hate-spewing' most certainly is, be it your opinion or not. There are better, less inflammatory terms for it. Please be aware of your posting habits in the future.”
It was about Saudi Arabia, to give you an idea of context. The country which airs preachers that says apostates should be killed, and homosexuals too. But what Blackie said is perfectly 100% okay totally not inflammatory. I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)
Here's an article about an interesting book about those ones who returned from syria/iraq. As I always thought they don't regret what they were doing or the concept of the caliphate, they only regret the comforts they had in a western country.
The title reminds of an amazing french tv series, but of course it has nothing to do with that.
A few days ago 4 men from kosovo, all with regular and legal jobs (they worked as waiters) were arrested on the suspicion of plotting a terror attack in venice. One of them is a foreign fighter that has fought in syria.
Kosovo is a nation under western influence, they're Usa oriented. But saudi arabia has paid several hundreds of millions to make this nation another radial islamic area.
The hypocrisy of western countries, that that keep saudi arabia as an allied and a business partner is disgusting. Saudi arabia is among the fathers of islamic terrorism groups, and not even donald trump condemnes their actions.
You've got to wonder why they are so scared of anything other than Islam, that they have to totally destroy all historical artefacts. Most people in the western world see statues of ancient gods as a novelty, but to ISIS they need total destruction.
They're obliterating the history of their own people. The first potters wheels for example in this video. Something their ancestors achieved, but now needs irradiating because they weren't Muslims.
This thing actually angers me more than killing people. You can kill people, which is awful, but they are destroying the history and culture of the people, in the hope they can rewrite history in their own approved Islamic way. They say you can kill a man but you can't kill ideas, but ISIS will give it a bloody good try. Now generations will grow up with these artefacts and historic sites being just a memory of their parents.
You've got to wonder why they are so scared of anything other than Islam, that they have to totally destroy all historical artefacts. Most people in the western world see statues of ancient gods as a novelty, but to ISIS they need total destruction.
They're obliterating the history of their own people. The first potters wheels for example in this video. Something their ancestors achieved, but now needs irradiating because they weren't Muslims.
This thing actually angers me more than killing people. You can kill people, which is awful, but they are destroying the history and culture of the people, in the hope they can rewrite history in their own approved Islamic way. They say you can kill a man but you can't kill ideas, but ISIS will give it a bloody good try. Now generations will grow up with these artefacts and historic sites being just a memory of their parents.
jhe90 wrote:
seems Kurdish forces may have cut IS link road off between them.
Don't worry, Turkey will start up artillery and air strikes just to keep ISIS in the game.
Medium of Death wrote:
Islam is basically Protestantism on steroids.
I'd have said Puritanism, it's nicely dead, so that the mods are less likely to deem it unseemly to make such a comparison. After all, I got banned because I compared a certain political party to another highly dubious political party that they had embraced inorder to win the election. It's much like HL Mencken once said: "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
Though I've always preferred, in the case of the current administration: "POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)
If I was the type to have signature quotes, this would be one of them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)
If I was the type to have signature quotes, this would be one of them.
Good idea. I should do that if some mods had not rolled 73 on the “random mid-crisis encounter event” which is “No signature allowed” .
Fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean. Six people were killed, the Syrian army said.
It is the first direct US military action against forces commanded by Syria's president.
The Kremlin, which backs Bashar al-Assad, has condemned the strike.
Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, called it "an act of aggression against a sovereign nation".
Follow our live updates
Dramatic turnaround for Trump
Trump acts decisively in Syria: Now what?
Why is there a war in Syria?
The attack, at 04:40 Syrian time (01:40 GMT), comes just days after dozens of civilians, including many children, died in the suspected nerve gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province.
This is fething idiotic. Mission Creep is going to set in, and we'll soon be bogged down again for the next decade occupying Syria, like we occupied Iraq. All we need now is another Dodgy Dossier.
Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.
Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.
I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.
Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.
I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.
I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.
I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.
Plus Russia just announced they're backing out on the deal between the US and Russia to share operational information in hopes of causing exactly that.
I suppose the ultimate question there is 'How far is Putin willing to go to keep Tartus'? Since Russia's only real interest in Syria at this point, other than oil, is the Russian Navy's base at Tartus. It's supposedly a supply and maintenance facility, According to the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs the base has evacuated all civilians, but the Russian Defense Ministry denies this.
Russia just in January got Syria to extend the deal for the port for another 50 years, including surrendering sovereignty over the territory of the port, making it Russian national soil, as Putin sees it.
If we're going to go through with this and depose Assad, we'd bloody well have a solid plan for what comes next, who replaces him and how to rebuild Syria's government.
My fear is that history will look back on any Western attempt to depose Assad as a repeat of the Iraq debacle. I have no faith in our governments' collective ability to avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq.
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
Why quote me when your response has feth all to do with my comment? If you want to rail against a Trump policy that does not yet exist, go for it, but no reason to quote me in your effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the travel ban, it is almost as if you were under the mistaken impression that a US travel ban had some effect on the ability of other countries to control their own immigration.
Well a good way to depose somebody is by aiding their enemies. You Yanks also have a history of stirring up terrorism and then crying when it happens to you. Britain is actually doing a great job in preventing terrorism across Europe.
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.
Compel wrote: I'm reminded that i should read the Quran one day so i can further discuss my points. So I'll concede, not personally knowing further about the Muslim faith that i personally am unable to argue my point further. Smarter men than i can, of course. I imagine the answer will be related to the various versions of the faith, including i believe the extreme ends of wahabiism.
It's certainly just as complicated as Christianity, with different branches disagreeing on the exact meaning of this and that because they might not even be using the same translation of the bible.
The muslims would seem to have an advantage in that the Quran is supposed to be read in Arabic (as the only true version of Allah's word) but sadly for them it's written in classical Arabic, meaning that converts (or indeed even many speaking modern Arabic) will usually need help interpreting the verses. And it's spread out from Mohammed's first revelation to his death 23 years later, with some scholars claiming newer entries make old ones obsolete and others dismissing such a notion. I guess the wahhabists concentrate on Mohammed's later entries from when he was a ruler keeping order instead of the earlier ones where he was more flexible, merciful and reasonable. Also the shia/sunni divide and different versions of so-called hadith (accounts?) and tafsir (interpretations) make it harder to understand than we'd think. So just like people can use the bible to justify almost anything with the right turn of words a preacher can use the Quran and associated writings to push almost any agenda to those listening. And ofc, if you don't like religion (or that religion) you can make almost any absurd statement about what it allows.
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.
"Better the devil you know".
Just what exactly are the alternatives right now? Who do you propose should replace Assad? What's the plan for reconstruction of the government? How will you maintain peace, and prevent a power vacuum and internecine factionalism?
We saw in Libya what happens when you lob a few bombs to help depose a dictator, then prematurely declare Mission Accomplished. Libya is a failed state with warring factions and a massive migrant crisis. Gadaffi once threatened to flood Europe with migrants...his death achieved the same result.
Ever since Iraq, we've been lobbing bombs then scrambling to come up with a plan to deal with the fallout after the fact. We deposed Saddam without a plan for what comes after. We deposed Gadaffi without a plan for what comes after, then washed our hands of Libya because we didn't want to repeat the Iraq occupation.
Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
Maybe those meddling Americans shouldn't have given a damn about all those English children Hitler was bombing while they were at it too? He was the most likely one to restore Order in Europe after all....
"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for, Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." - Gen Dwight D Eisenhower, outside the Buchenwald subcamp at Ohrdruf
Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.
We keep repeating the same mistakes.
I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.
I'll make another prediction: the length of time that the West has screwed around will be directly proportional to the amount of time they will be left having to Occupy Syria.
Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.
We keep repeating the same mistakes.
I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.
Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.
We keep repeating the same mistakes.
I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.
At least we actually had a plan. WW2 is not a good comparison.
In Libya and Syria, our leaders are just flailing around, lobbing bombs as though its a solution then scrambling to deal with the mess they left behind (if not outright ignoring it).
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.
"Better the devil you know".
Just what exactly are the alternatives right now? Who do you propose should replace Assad? What's the plan for reconstruction of the government? How will you maintain peace, and prevent a power vacuum and internecine factionalism?
We saw in Libya what happens when you lob a few bombs to help depose a dictator, then prematurely declare Mission Accomplished. Libya is a failed state with warring factions and a massive migrant crisis. Gadaffi once threatened to flood Europe with migrants...his death achieved the same result.
Ever since Iraq, we've been lobbing bombs then scrambling to come up with a plan to deal with the fallout after the fact. We deposed Saddam without a plan for what comes after. We deposed Gadaffi without a plan for what comes after, then washed our hands of Libya because we didn't want to repeat the Iraq occupation.
Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.
We keep repeating the same mistakes.
Better the devil we know is such a silly saying in this case. We know what Assad is doing to the opposition and his own civilians. He is responsible for the majority of the casualties that have fallen in the civil war. I'm quite willing to bet Assad has killed more Syrians than any of the rebel groups (the UN has said the government has committed the "vast majority" of atrocities) and ISIS. You literally can't get any worse than Assad. He isn't in any position to rule his country anymore, you need an alternative, cause Assad will need to murder or expel the vast majority of Syrians to regain any kind of control over his country. Almost a third of the Syrian population has already left the country and won't likely be returning to Assad and after six years the civil war is still ongoing with over 10% of the population killed or wounded. There is no government with any legitimacy anymore. Syria has ceased to exist, the country has collapsed and half the people are gone.
Assad will have peace when all his opponents are dead and seeing how slowly he is winning the war it will stay a giant power vacuum for the foreseeable future.
Libya is a failed state because the approach there failed. But can you say with full conviction that less people would have been killed if we didn't help the rebels against Qaddafi? It would have been a massacre, now its low scale political conflict not mass warfare and close to genocide like Syria. Furthermore the migrant crisis is exactly the problem that was caused by Assad, the majority of the people causing the 'crisis' were/are Syrians running from Assad. Are you willing to take these people into the UK if Assad stays in power?
What is our plan when Assad wins? Avert our eyes and hope history doesn't judge us to harshly for looking away when the first great mass murderer of the 21st century is tearing his country apart?
A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.
Who or what are we going to replace Assad with? How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government? How will we prevent a power vacuum? How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum? How will we rebuild the Syrian government? How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?
These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.
Exactly, so all the whining about not having a plan is hilarious, because the longer between the creation of the plan and victory, the more likely that it's going to fail. Because as events progress, the plan has less and less to do with reality on the ground. The ideal time to plan for after the win is shortly before it. This way all the people you need alive afterwards are most likely still alive.
Remember folks, the plan for Europe after victory in WW2 was to eliminate Germany as an industrial nation in it's entirety and force them into agriculturalism. I might note that does not seem to have worked out, for some strange Russian reason.
A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.
Who or what are we going to replace Assad with?
How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government?
How will we prevent a power vacuum?
How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum?
How will we rebuild the Syrian government?
How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?
These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.
"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.
I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS). I have no faith in the Syrian rebels' ability to build a better Syria than a Syria ruled by Assad.
A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.
Who or what are we going to replace Assad with?
How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government?
How will we prevent a power vacuum?
How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum?
How will we rebuild the Syrian government?
How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?
These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.
1) Who knows? I vote for the Kurds, just to Piss Off Turkey. The reality is though that no one knows who would be a good Syrian leader for Syria. Particularly not on this board.
2) This is actually easy. I even have a slogan for him: 'He's in favor of your children NOT dying horribly!' I see this as a winner.
3) By putting a squad on every street corner and actually being helpful. If you/'re the one putting their house back together and making sure the mail comes on time, they're less likely to rocket grenade you. And it's important to make sure that the public knows that the US soldiers are there to actually help, and make it very, very visible that they're helping.
4) ISIS at least, will have to be run off by any occupying force. This is where the Russians have really failed, by simply ignoring ISIS.
5) By holding elections and ensuring a well equipped and supplied army backs the government,.
6) With the Army Corps of Engineers. This is NOT something that should be palmed off on contractors. For this to work at all the US Military has to be SEEN working to make things better for the average Syrian.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS).
Pretty much everybody in this one is a giant sopping gak sandwich. Its a matter I guess of "our turds" or "their turds", I think we are just hoping our turds will be less gakky than theirs in the end.
1) Who knows? I vote for the Kurds, just to Piss Off Turkey. The reality is though that no one knows who would be a good Syrian leader for Syria. Particularly not on this board. 2) This is actually easy. I even have a slogan for him: 'He's in favor of your children NOT dying horribly!' I see this as a winner. 3) By putting a squad on every street corner and actually being helpful. If you/'re the one putting their house back together and making sure the mail comes on time, they're less likely to rocket grenade you. And it's important to make sure that the public knows that the US soldiers are there to actually help, and make it very, very visible that they're helping. 4) ISIS at least, will have to be run off by any occupying force. This is where the Russians have really failed, by simply ignoring ISIS. 5) By holding elections and ensuring a well equipped and supplied army backs the government,. 6) With the Army Corps of Engineers. This is NOT something that should be palmed off on contractors. For this to work at all the US Military has to be SEEN working to make things better for the average Syrian.
The Kurds have no interest in Syria beyond their territory, they wouldn't rule that crapbastket even if we paid them to do it.
As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,
I don't think the Russians are ignoring ISIS, I think they are saving them for last. Realistically if they can eliminate the "moderate" *(and that is hard to say) rebels and all that is left is ISIS, it will be much harder for the world to condemn what they are doing. Basically make it a fight between two evils. With their evil of course being the lesser one. The Russians are clever and they are cunning, I do believe they have an end goal and are working to achieve it. Assad just needs to be careful that he remains a "necessary" evil for them, or it could go bad for him. Just like it went bad for their proxies in Afghanistan.
Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.
I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.
I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.
You're right, but it already happened that turkey shot down a russian jet and nobody happened between those two countries. A war between super powers would be catastrophic, even with some serious accident I don't think we may live WW3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS). I have no faith in the Syrian rebels' ability to build a better Syria than a Syria ruled by Assad.
I completely agree, we're supporting the ISIS of the future. Remember the usa with the taliban? Islamic fundamentalist should be eradicated, no matter what. Starting with ISIS and finishing with saudi arabia.
As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,
Sorry, the only real success anyone has had dealing with religious fanatics willing to die just to kill one or two more Americans was following WW2 and that's pretty much what they did in Japan.
Iraq and Afghanistan they palmed some of the important parts off on contractors because no one Drafts anymore, so the incredibly broad pool of talents and skills they could draw on AFTER a war dried up.
I completely agree, we're supporting the ISIS of the future. Remember the USA with the Taliban? Islamic fundamentalist should be eradicated, no matter what. Starting with ISIS and finishing with Saudi Arabia.
I do recall the US siding with the mujaheddin, which is not actually the same as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, though there's some overlap in membership. It's like saying the French Resistance was the same thing as the Free French Army,
And what about Christian Fundamentalists? Or Jewish Fundamentalists? You going to assault Vatican City after this, because there's a lot of guys in there that are really hard core on religious doctrine.
As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,
Sorry, the only real success anyone has had dealing with religious fanatics willing to die just to kill one or two more Americans was following WW2 and that's pretty much what they did in Japan.
Iraq and Afghanistan they palmed some of the important parts off on contractors because no one Drafts anymore, so the incredibly broad pool of talents and skills they could draw on AFTER a war dried up.
I think the further failures in Iraq and Afghanistan don't really support the idea that Baron is wrong. Afghanistan was never really a state in the sense that Iraq and Syria were. Furthermore the terrain means that guerrilla tactics are very effective coupled with the 'low' amount of manpower the US deployed to secure it all. The West never could have won Afghanistan as there were never enough troops to comb all the mountains for Taliban, when the army shows up the Taliban just pack up and leave for the next cave or blend in to the civilian population until they leave again. You can't really have any succes if you cant actually be present at all times in the area you need to secure. Syria however is mostly desert instead of mountains and is more heavily urbanized. Which makes it a lot easier to secure with less troops if able to succeed.
For Iraq the main failure was going in without any plan and expecting the locals to start chanting U.S.A U.S.A when the tanks finally rolled in. Then the 'geniuses' fired everyone and anyone who actually knew how to run and control the country. Compare this to an enhanced political process of involvement and the U.S. surge that occurred after five years stabilizing a lot of the violence in Iraq showing that more troops and more local involvement actually helps control the country. Go in to Syria and bring the lower parts of government (they kept Nazi's in charge after WWII so why not some government officials) and the rebels together (you can keep them in separate areas) and slowly rebuild and reform a new government might actually work.
Of course this is depending on how well is planned and what actually happens. But going in to Syria should not in any way resemble the U.S. approach in either Afghanistan or Iraq and start of way better in at least the planning phase and demographic distribution.
"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.
This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.
People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'
All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.
"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.
This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.
People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'
All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.
There was actually some kind of plan, you know, the one which had the allies invade and liberate western Europe.
Eliminating Assad leads to.........what exactly, what is the end game? What possible outcome is there that sees a reduction in the threat posed by extremism? What outcome is there that eliminates what will effectively become clan on clan violence?
Look at recent reports from Iraq, people from areas liberated by ISIS are now under threat from government militias.
Really we should only be supporting fronts active against ISIS even then with parameters tighter than a ducks arse and maybe not at all. If realpolitik was not an issue then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be added to the axis of evil.
"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.
This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.
People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'
All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.
There was actually some kind of plan, you know, the one which had the allies invade and liberate western Europe.
Eliminating Assad leads to.........what exactly, what is the end game? What possible outcome is there that sees a reduction in the threat posed by extremism? What outcome is there that eliminates what will effectively become clan on clan violence?
Look at recent reports from Iraq, people from areas liberated by ISIS are now under threat from government militias.
Really we should only be supporting fronts active against ISIS even then with parameters tighter than a ducks arse and maybe not at all. If realpolitik was not an issue then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be added to the axis of evil.
There was aslo a plan for a occupation and post war. Granted it screwed a few nations over... Poland for example but it was a plan agreed by the the big 4.
There was post war planning. If you declare a war, you need a plan for post war.
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.
Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.
Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.
Actually the African Union and the UN frequently direct help towards conflicts within Africa. The West only steps in to provide support if what is done is not sufficient. France for example has done so multiple times with very little to gain in a geopolitical sense. It also does not currently have the intensity of the Syrian Civil War.
Rwanda wasn't that interesting geopolitcally speaking, look where that ended up. When it became clear how horrifyingly genocidal it got some action was finally taken. Because it wasn't that interesting we let a million people get slaughtered. That always amuses me about the 'never again' arguments when commemorating WWII and its atrocities by governments/states, while at the same time just looking away at others trying to get in on the dark side of history. We have had humanitarian interventions, while it is a relatively new concept we should not pretend that it doesn't exist or that the West hasn't been a proponent of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.
Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.
Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.
Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.
Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.
It must be exciting, heartwarming and a fething pit of despair at the same time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios.
I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth, especially in the Middle East. Even before WW1, the US had plans detailing fighting Japan. War Plan Orange was drafted up in 1911, but it was being bandied about in 1906. It wasn't officially adopted till 1924, but it had been around for a while.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.
Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.
Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.
Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.
It must be exciting, heartwarming and a fething pit of despair at the same time.
Couldn't say myself. Got a friend whose heading there soon to do security/training. I'm sure I'll get his take on what the place is like.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios.
I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth, especially in the Middle East. Even before WW1, the US had plans detailing fighting Japan. War Plan Orange was drafted up in 1911, but it was being bandied about in 1906. It wasn't officially adopted till 1924, but it had been around for a while.
There's always a plan foe everything. However stupid it seems as a back up you never know when anything can happen anywhere and you need to react to it. Having a plan makes sense.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
Though the plan of say trouble in North Korea, Iran, Syria related or other hot spots will be far more regularly updated than say the invade brazil or coup in Europe by comunist sepratists files.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
While I agree, there are plenty of outside factors that make that unlikely. Turkey would slaughter the Kurds before allowing anything resembling a Kurd state to exist and Iran would basically annex all the important parts of Iraq.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
Sadly, that's not really proven to be the answer historically. Look at how the British Empire tried to settle things. India and Pakistan. Various African countries etc. Eire and Northern Ireland (and to a thankfully lesser degree, Scotland and England. Even then, there's folk just won't let it lie)
That's the lasting price of colonialism. We went in (We as in Europe, not just pointing the figure at Britain here), set up our own arbitrary borders, and failed to really distinguish between different cultural groups etc. Then we pulled out. There's been trouble ever since.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.
Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios. I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth.
That's the purpose of military theorycrafters, strategists and whatever you call them. If there's ever a need they already have at least the basics of a plan ready. Many of them are totally unlikely but you still have them because stuff can happen. So you might not want to invade, say, fellow NATO member Norway but what if there was a big showdown and Russia invaded Norway for forward radar stations and AA defense? You'd have to liberate the place to deny them the advantage. There's guaranteed to be a plan for that scenario somewhere, just as the Russians have a ready "invade Norway" plan in their emergency folders.
But Syria needs a plan far larger than simple military theory. Invading Syria is easy, leaving a somewhat stable country afterwards is the hard part.
It may not be a terrible idea to dismantle it. a unified Syria may not be possible or even necessarily desireable.
Honestly Iraq should be 3 nations ish.
A Sunni Iraq, thr other main sect and Kurdish.
The borders are not always accurate to the peoples.
Sadly, that's not really proven to be the answer historically. Look at how the British Empire tried to settle things. India and Pakistan. Various African countries etc. Eire and Northern Ireland (and to a thankfully lesser degree, Scotland and England. Even then, there's folk just won't let it lie)
That's the lasting price of colonialism. We went in (We as in Europe, not just pointing the figure at Britain here), set up our own arbitrary borders, and failed to really distinguish between different cultural groups etc. Then we pulled out. There's been trouble ever since.
Thr French, and a few other powers had middle eastern and other territories.
Same in the East and Americas.
Everyone likes to name the UK but thr French learned little post even WW2 when UK relinquished much of them to local population, France held onto Algeria, French Indochina etc.
Yeah, a big problem with the Middle East is that everyone just hates everyone. It's hard to form coherent nation states that way. Even if we split it along the lines of Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds, there will still be constant conflict, because they all just freaking hate each other. What's sad is that so much of this goes back to a simple play for power 1400 years ago...
CptJake wrote: Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.
Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?
I'm curious, why is Assad the best bet to restore stability to Syria when it is his fault that it is currently in pieces?
The best bet who is whoever the Russians are backing. They're really good at that. In the cold war they made the West look like rank amateurs in the great "lets convert countries to our side through rifle fire" game.
Disciple of Fate wrote: . When it became clear how horrifyingly genocidal it got some action was finally taken. Because it wasn't that interesting we let a million people get slaughtered.
Lot of people obeyed orders in Rwanda, and stood there and watched those people die in front of them. I want you to stop and think about that, having to sit there on your ass and watch thousands hacked to death in front of you because command has no balls, issuing order after order to stand back and let it happen.
To sit and do nothing is to be complicit in the act.
It's weird to break out the same image years later on this board, but it's still true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The best bet who is whoever the Russians are backing.
Sadly, no. I don't see Assad ever ruling Syria outside Damascus ever again without massive foreign forces (Russia) being deployed there indefinitely.
Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Sadly, no. I don't see Assad ever ruling Syria outside Damascus ever again without massive foreign forces (Russia) being deployed there indefinitely.
I don't see anyone ever ruling Syria, the nation is dead and fractured, and no one has the forces needed to bring the rest into compliance.
Bring into compliance? Your 40K is showing.
"Yes Spzz Emprah, the Mighty XIth Spazz Marinse Legion will bring Syria into compliance!"
-Last recorded words of Primarch Prim Adona, of the XI Legion.
"Yes Spzz Emprah, the Mighty XIth Spazz Marinse Legion will bring Syria into compliance!"
-Last recorded words of Primarch Prim Adona, of the XI Legion.
Syria is basically a small glimpse 40k in our planetary backyard.
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
whembly wrote: CNN cryon is stating that the US military actually dropped a MOAB on ISIS positions.
That firecracker is a bit... big.
Jeez that's overkill so glorious I cannot help but salute that commitment to ending whatever they ended.
A B52 . B2. I'm pretty sure nothing else in the fleet can drop those.
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
Hmm. Even if 2.5% is not independent its still as part of Nato and providing a credible contribution to the combined defense organisation. As part of the larger alliance its your contribution to the combined defense pact.
Its also it's thefact if your gaining the advantages of membership. You need to pay the bill to for that protection.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every time a genocide happens we swear its never again. But 10-20 years later it always gets forgotten and we get the next horrific event to remember.
I realize it is easy to speak about intervention coming from a country that is too small to act independently in this case. But I sure as hell question the use of paying billions for a military if we don't use it for situations like this. Yeah all those ads on tv about peace and security are nice, maybe actually go and send them over there to practice what they preach on tv in their recruitment ads. But nooo, we have to seriously debate about sending helicopters along with our soldiers for faster medivac, cause it might cost too much money. Mainland Europe is a disgrace and the faster an EU army is founded with the size and budget to actively intervene in these kinds of gakshows the better.
Who's we? Unless you are the US, the UK or arguably France, you spend more on bus stop benches then you do on your military.
Frazzled, reread my second part cause I feel like you missed my point and the first sentence there. As the Netherlands we are too small to intervene even if we had more budget. Although like I mentioned our current defense spending of billions is beyond stupid because its waaaayyy too little to actually field a halfway decent military without throwing another 1% of total budget on top. Why I think spending billions is stupid is not because of some anti-military thinking, it comes from the fact we are spending billions on what is basically a pile of parts to attach to a US/German action instead of a basic independent military.
The Netherlands are not too small to be capable of military operations. It has 17 million people and a pretty big economy. There are plenty of nations out there with less people and smaller economies that are capable of independent operations. The Netherlands are not a small nation (to put it in perspective, of the 50 countries in Europe, only 11 have a larger population than the Netherlands and only 6 have a larger economy).
Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time). The Dutch days of independently operating are far behind us. Even in the war in Indonesia we depended on US support to get a lot of equipment we needed to fight there and when they pulled the plug on supplying us we basically gave up on Indonesia. I know a bigger military sounds appealing, but in reality we have gotten too small to do a lot, as everything has just gotten too expensive and we don't have the skilled people for it anymore. This is why I support an EU army, because it can create an economy of scale in which a large effective military capable of independently sustainable wars can become feasible again. Besides whenever the US goes somewhere Europe usually follows, its not like were that independent in foreign policy when it comes to deploying European armies, so why not just combine.
In the end it comes down to "Why should we make the hard budget choices, when America will protect us."
Everyone complains about being unable to make just 2.5% happen, because of how much it will impact their budget. None of you all seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the only reason you HAVE that luxury is because we spend that 10% ourselves.
In the end for the Netherlands it comes down more to "why should we make hard choices, because all we do is contribute to other countries operations anyway without being able to launch our own". I don't agree with the current 1.2% as the military doesn't have two pennies to rub together and its actually endangering lives. Part of the problem is the social programs (old age and taxation) surrounding baby boomers and their voting habits the US just doesn't face. Baby boomers gain more from the state then they put in and bitch and whine every second they have to make concessions, meanwhile their cushy social security systems were built up by there parents who didn't benefit as much and will need to be carried by their children now who will face severe cutbacks on their own social securities in the future to pay or the generation of baby boomers now. Its the richest and most active electoral group and cutting a bit on them to fund the military is just a no go. Its insane we are risking lives to ensure cushy vacations for them, but its how democracy malfunctions at times.
I of course realize why we have this luxury and I didn't want to appear to complain not to be able to make 2.5%. I hate how we are starving the military, education and a ton of other sectors just to take care of the baby boomers and than having to start paying through the nose to pay of the debts we accrued to take care of them while the rest of the country fell apart. You can't find a party in the Netherlands that said we will raise it to 2%, they all talk about gradual 0.1 or 0.2% increases. During the 90's even after the Cold War the budgets were still higher, but now that the choice is starting to fall on social security systems or army budget due to the aging population. Having the balls to turn against the majority of the electorates wishes is a good way to get a swift kick to them during elections, so they don't even try anymore. My generation, millenials, and to a lesser extent generation X are going to have to pick up the pieces in a devastated system compared to what most of our parents will have enjoyed.
Edit: Just so you know, baby boomers in a lot of European countries combined with an aging population and budget squeezes lead to the under funding of the military. Its not just limited to the Netherlands. Also the US is able to run deficits far in excess of European nations due to all kinds of other factors (primacy of the US dollar, how the international system functions, just US economic power etc etc.), which means things are even more problematic for us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Nato has a guideline of 2%. But that would still be insignificant for a country such as the Netherlands. On 1.2% we have a fleet of 38 F-35's, these will be all our new fighter aircraft, down from 200 or so F-16's that will get retired. Even a 2% budget will have more than halved our previous capacity. This is why I'm pro EU army, we all contribute 2% budget and then we can field a significant force combined, instead of all these little countries having to pay through the nose for a dozen or so aircraft or tanks. Size matters in purchasing these things and we just don't have that regardless.
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Minimum 2%
That's meant to be your membership fee to maintain ernough armed forces to be at least capable of acting with other members.
US and UK where pushing for 2.5% to strengthen alliance
A 2% goal without specifying what that money is spent on is hilariously useless though. If Norway, for instance, spent 2% of GDP on a battleship made out of solid gold they'd reach the 2% spending goal, but...
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Minimum 2%
And to be honest,what is equally if not more important than % is what they buy with that %.
NATO, as an organization, relies on US ISR, transport and refueling way too much. Countries would rather have a handful of sexy fighter planes or tanks, which are over represented (excess capability) in the organization rather than buy capabilities which actually enhance the war fighting and power projection of the organization.
Up above you have someone complaining the Netherlands can only afford a small number of F35s. So? What if instead they helped fill capability gaps whatever tiny percent of GDP they felt was worth the expenditure could at least be useful...
CptJake wrote: 1.2%? What are you supposed to spend as a NATO member?
Minimum 2%
And to be honest,what is equally if not more important than % is what they buy with that %.
NATO, as an organization, relies on US ISR, transport and refueling way too much. Countries would rather have a handful of sexy fighter planes or tanks, which are over represented (excess capability) in the organization rather than buy capabilities which actually enhance the war fighting and power projection of the organization.
Up above you have someone complaining the Netherlands can only afford a small number of F35s. So? What if instead they helped fill capability gaps whatever tiny percent of GDP they felt was worth the expenditure could at least be useful...
I wasn't exactly complaining, I was pointing out how expensive it could get if you have to negotiate for a few dozen planes instead of thousands like the US, why we can't buy equipment like this EU wide yet is also a mystery to me.
You miss the problem to a certain extent though, yeah fighters and tanks (which we sold and now have to lease from Germany ) are sexy, but also easier to justify. Closing capability gaps such as transport and refueling is seen as useless, because our army is so small they never go somewhere alone, which is why we are comfortable leaning on US capabilities. Meanwhile these few dozen planes still fly around Dutch airspace intercepting airliners or Russian aircraft. It would be nice if we could up the budget by 1-2% to have the capability to move our own ass, but then the next question is move it where. This is why buying a few sexy aircraft is more logical to European governments, as almost all their armies are too small to be used alone anyway, which makes investing in transport capability more unfeasible. So why invest in something if you can just hitch a ride with the US to their conflict zone?
I agree with that argument when it comes to say, the Middle East, or Africa.
However, for example, does the Netherlands now have sufficient transport capacity and infrastructure to, say, as a completely random example... Move their forces to.... Poland?
Compel wrote: I agree with that argument when it comes to say, the Middle East, or Africa.
However, for example, does the Netherlands now have sufficient transport capacity and infrastructure to, say, as a completely random example... Move their forces to.... Poland?
Well we can still do that, mainly because the military was geared for moving into Germany during the Cold War. Its close enough to be doable with the equipment we have Now moving outside of Europe/overseas is where the transport issues pop up, as in Europe we can still depend on good infrastructure like roads and railways, while being within reasonable distance to the Netherlands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Even the US isn't buying 'thousands' of F35s.
Isn't the US buying close to 2000? Next to all the other aircraft they would also posses. Regardless, its easier to pressure for a purchase order from a foreign company if you can buy hundreds instead of a dozen (we have options like the Eurofighter or the Saab, if Lockheed doesn't want to play ball).
Iron_Captain wrote: Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Yup, it is all a matter of budget. And as budgets can be changed, that makes it all a matter of being willing or not willing to do so. Virtually nobody in the Netherlands wants to make the cuts in other parts that would be needed to fund a more capable military. And that is why the Dutch military sucks, and that is why so many Dutch think the Netherlands is small and insignificant, which then becomes an excuse for further decreasing the military budget. It is circular logic used to disguise the fact that the Dutch want others (mainly the US and the Germans) to pay for defense and the pursuit of collective Western interests. And that is a problem.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time).
Once, the Dutch kicked British ass all over the seven seas though. Once, the Dutch even destroyed the British fleet in the Thames, and the Dutch stadtholder invaded and became king of England. Once... It was only in the 18th century that the British became more powerful than the Dutch. But yeah, those times are long past. Still, with 30 F-35s the Netherlands already could contribute a lot more than with 12 (altough they really should have bought the cheaper planes).
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.
Also, Syria released this yesterday:
Army Command: Hundreds, including many civilians, killed in int’l coalition’s airstrike on ISIS toxic materials depot
Damascus, SANA- The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said on Thursday that hundreds were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to an air strike carried out by aircrafts of the so-called US-led international coalition against a huge depot for ISIS terrorist organization that includes toxic materials in the village of Hatla in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor province.
In a statement on Thursday, the General Command said aircrafts of the international coalition carried out between 17:30 and 17:50 pm on Wednesday an air strike against a position of ISIS terrorists that includes a large number of foreign mercenaries in the village of Hatla to the east of Deir Ezzor, causing a white cloud that soon turned into yellow as a result of the explosion of a huge depot that includes a large amount of toxic materials.
The General Command said that a fire erupted as a result of the strike that lasted until 22:30 pm, while hundreds of people were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to suffocation caused by the inhalation of toxic materials.
The Army’s Command noted that this incident confirms the truth of the coordination between the terrorist organizations and the countries supporting them to find pretexts and to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of using chemical weapons, adding that this incident also confirms that the terrorist organizations, mainly ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, possess chemical weapons and have the ability to obtain, transfer, store and use those weapons with the help of well-known countries in the region.
“This is what Syria has warned of every time terrorist groups used chemical weapons against the civilians and Syrian Arab Armed Forces,” the statement added.
The command reiterated its assertion that it neither possess any types of chemical weapons, nor has it used any, warning of the dangers of continued use of chemical weapons by the terrorist groups against civilians, particularly after the messages these groups have recently received which provide cover to their actions and allow them to escape punishment.
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs. Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.
You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.
A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.
You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.
A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.
Interesting.
It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources
Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.
Number of 'guys killed' isn't even a metric for how effective it was. The people were not the target, the facility/tunnel complex was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And frankly, you can't really count evaporated red mist and figure out a body count, nor has anyone had a chance to go deep and dig through collapsed areas.
Iron_Captain wrote: Now of course the Netherlands doesn't need to be able to go to war basically on its own and sustain it for several years, like the US has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. That'd be unrealistic. But being a nation that once ruled a world-spanning empire, the Netherlands can do a hell of a lot more than it does currently. It really isn't a matter of not being able to, but rather one of not being willing to. Most of the Dutch population just doesn't want to spend money on a military or get involved in fights abroad and therefore makes up excuses like "We are too small".
Not really, let me explain why. Size and economic wise we are fine to field a larger army than we currently do, but its all about budget. Sure having 10% of government budget will certainly help, but electorally speaking it has been very difficult to shift from the current 1.2% because it would require sizeable cuts elsewhere. What we currently have in capabilities could certainly take out Luxemburg or perhaps one of the Baltic States. In Afghanistan and Iraq however we were totally dependent on US capabilities to even gets us there and remain supplied, being able to field a couple of thousand troops was already putting a serious strain on what capabilities we had. Independent operations always sounds nice, but practically speaking the Netherlands could not wage a war alone unless it is against a direct neighbour of similar size. Even Syria would be a serious problem on a 2-3% budget due to home field advantage such as fortifications or SAM installations. Theoretically we could do very well, but you will never get the political support to cut into our current system so deeply as to effect at least a 2% rise in budget. Even a rise like this would bring us closer to but still not up to Cold War levels. The lack of conscripts combined with the expensive technology and the fact the military just isn't a career anymore means we just can't do it (they never attract enough young people, its why they have been running recruitment ads back to back for years).
Yup, it is all a matter of budget. And as budgets can be changed, that makes it all a matter of being willing or not willing to do so. Virtually nobody in the Netherlands wants to make the cuts in other parts that would be needed to fund a more capable military. And that is why the Dutch military sucks, and that is why so many Dutch think the Netherlands is small and insignificant, which then becomes an excuse for further decreasing the military budget. It is circular logic used to disguise the fact that the Dutch want others (mainly the US and the Germans) to pay for defense and the pursuit of collective Western interests. And that is a problem.
Budget certainly can and should be changed. But even a 2-3% budget will not make us able to really operate independently. European states are welfare states which means that we just can't put as much into the military as the US (also the US has unique economic advantages for running deficits for military budget). I wouldn't say virtually nobody wants to make cuts, I think the youth is just not involved enough with politics as a whole to notice what should happen and any cuts would affect baby boomers which are the largest voting group are just a no go. Even if most of the younger people would vote, we still wouldn't dent the vast size of the baby boomer vote due to demographic imbalance.
Government however operates under the assumption that the Netherlands is the 'smallest of the large countries'. Most parties would support a higher budget if only their voters would, because most parties went along to Afghanistan and Iraq without a lot of protest. The we are small card is not why budgets have gone down. The real reason is that we can say the Cold War is over, so we can cut budgets, but this was secretly done so cuts on other sectors (the ones the majority of their electorate benefits from) could be postponed. Look at the retirement age, it should have been lowered years ago, but proposing it back then would have been suicidal. This shortsightedness by the voters and the tyranny of the majority has completely messed up the future for our generation in not just the military, but also the education and social welfare sectors. Yet successive governments still have not gone far enough to prevent this destructive trend from continuing. Its not really about people thinking were too small, its about people thinking 'would we rather have tanks or should I be able to go on that extra vacation to Aruba when I'm old'. People are selfish, they just try to make up BS arguments.
Having said that, the Netherlands is still too small to field a significant army on the scale of Germany, France or the UK and we should be ok with that idea (we can't even get enough young personnel now). We don't need a gigantic army, we just need a decent and well equipped one that can be easily achieved with a 2-3% budget and that can more easily cooperate with a German or US force without becoming completely dependable on them. Cooperating is good, but ensure that you as an ally are worth more than just a number of bodies the US can't provide itself, bring some sort of useful capability beyond just a bunch of bodies and five aircraft. Although our navy is still halfway decent for our size.
TL: DR Even if we invest more, we will never have more than a small army relatively speaking.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also saying we ruled a world-spanning empire is a bit much. We had Suriname and Indonesia because the Brits let us have it (they even gave them back to us after the Napoleonic period), not exactly massive. Even investing 2-3% would still leave us very much incapable of launching independent operations. Imagine tripling our budget, we could have like 30 F-35's flying around instead of the 10-12 we will have now (accounting for the rule of three where 2/3rd are grounded at any one time).
Once, the Dutch kicked British ass all over the seven seas though. Once, the Dutch even destroyed the British fleet in the Thames, and the Dutch stadtholder invaded and became king of England. Once... It was only in the 18th century that the British became more powerful than the Dutch. But yeah, those times are long past. Still, with 30 F-35s the Netherlands already could contribute a lot more than with 12 (altough they really should have bought the cheaper planes).
Hey man I admire your love for Dutch history, but even in the height of our Golden Age we did not fight the British all over the seven seas, mainly because neither countries were really that involved yet beyond the Atlantic. The Anglo-Dutch trade wars were winnable in the beginning because of our semi superpower status. But in the end it was only a tactical victory as Dutch victories couldn't be followed up by invasions (this is due to the extreme emphasis on naval supremacy and small army) meaning the British were free to keep tightening the screws on us, which is why we lost the superpower status to them. The glorious revolution is also a very misleading event because yes, we fielded a large army and navy, but British parliament also invited us over to put the guy on their throne. There was no way of knowing what would happen if conflict broke out.
The switch between Dutch to Anglo-French supremacy was already occurring in the 17th century due to our small size compared to France's population and Britain's secure position due to the channel. We certainly punched above our weight for a bit longer but by the second half of the 17th century we were already in decline. Again, I'm not disputing more budget would be better, but the welfare state model combined with our size means that even a 2-3% budget won't let us operate independently of our allies, but we don't have to be able to do everything independently outside of Europe, our allies are our greatest strength and we should always work together overseas.
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.
You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.
A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.
Interesting.
It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources
Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.
I wonder if this was also a message to BEST Korea?
I thought they dumped them out of the back of a C-130...
I'm sure the tunnel system targeted felt a bit of concussion...
Concussion sure, not much else tho, the MOAB wasn't designed to have penetration. Looking at some of the defence blogs I follow, bets are on Trump saying "drop that bomb, the biggest bomb, a yuuge bomb" because he is the bestest and drops the biggest bombs.
Something like a bunker buster or such would have been better. Less publicity potential tho.
You and the blogs you follow would be wrong. I know a guy very much involved in this mission from a targeteering/weaponeering perspective. He personally chose the munition several months ago when approached about this specific target. The MOAB was chosen because it was THE most efficient and effective way to attack this target. And you know what? It did exactly what it was supposed to do.
A 'bunker buster' would not have worked as well, and you would have need dozens precisely dropped with a very specific detonation pattern to come close to what this did, and there were more variables making 'bunker busters' less than desirable.
Interesting.
It killed 36 guys, acording to Afghan sources
Also, apparently this is the place, with a 150m circle over it.
I wonder if this was also a message to BEST Korea?
The odds of survival of that are rather low. Thats one huge area around it.. Gone.
Yes, maybe scarily that this is a well fortified. Semi underground facility. Now who does that match?
Raqqa or North Korea kinda match those two scenarios.
Both heavily into defensive warfare, bunkers and tunneling.
Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.
I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.
Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.
I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.
.@OIRSpox has seen the reports from SANA alleging @CJTFOIR strikes near Deir Ezzor Weds--not true! Intentional misinformation...again!
I'm not saying any of them is saying the truth. I'm not saying any is lying. I'm just posting interesting news.
Sure, I am pro-Russian/Syrian on this matter, but I wasn't coinciously trying to misinform, sorry if that's the impression you got, I'm just posting news that haven't been posted already.
Why should I be trying to say something? It's news. It's about ISIS and the fight against them. Someone may care about it.
I'm just confused because you linked it without saying something, which I would have expected since this is Syrian state media and their spin on the truth, less news and more propaganda. No confirmation this actually happened beyond the Syrian government.
.@OIRSpox has seen the reports from SANA alleging @CJTFOIR strikes near Deir Ezzor Weds--not true! Intentional misinformation...again!
I'm not saying any of them is saying the truth. I'm not saying any is lying. I'm just posting interesting news.
Sure, I am pro-Russian/Syrian on this matter, but I wasn't coinciously trying to misinform, sorry if that's the impression you got, I'm just posting news that haven't been posted already.
So far this airstrike seems not to have happened as there is little to no reporting about it outside of the Syrian government. I think most of us are aware what Sana is and I didn't think you were trying to misinform. I was just asking what you were trying to say by posting this from their state media, now you said it was interesting to post, which was the part I was curious about
Which I've posted before but it saw this and it makes some sense.
There's two other places that match this, heavily dug into rock and tunnels. Raqqa and North Korea.
This could of been a trial for a big push on there capital or scarily a test run just incase related to kims ultra fortified country.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
That's pretty solid evidence.
There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
That's pretty solid evidence.
There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.
AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
That's pretty solid evidence.
There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.
AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.
The only difference is "Islamic" "black power/white power" or any above preceeding word.
Still tried to achive aims by violence and fear.
AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.
But this isn't a generic "Terrorist incident" thread, this is a thread about ISIS. And from what Jake is saying, his radicalism is more likely to be born from the militant black power/nation of islam kind than from ISIS.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
That's pretty solid evidence.
There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.
AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.
The only difference is "Islamic" "black power/white power" or any above preceeding word.
Still tried to achieve aims by violence and fear.
CptJake wrote: That one is looking more racist inspired to me, though the crap bag perp does seem to use Islam to channel his racism. Typical prison conversion.
When someone shouts Allah Akhbar while killing a bunch of people, I take him at his word.
That's pretty solid evidence.
There is plenty of evidence (videos, social media posts and so on) from the guy showing he is a big time racist/anti-white militant as well. His brand of Islam is the type adopted/adapted by black militants and spread through the prison system.
AS noted, I take him at his word. He's a terrorist, just like the Atlanta church guy is a terrorist.
The only difference is "Islamic" "black power/white power" or any above preceeding word.
Still tried to achieve aims by violence and fear.
So did the Prophet Mohammad...
So did every nation to ever use force, ever. What's your point?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So did every nation to ever use force, ever. What's your point?
To refute the argument that that it has nothing to do with Islam. The very founder of Islam himself was a violent Warlord.
You just ignored half my post. Violence is hardly unique to Mohammed or Islam.
When did I ever say its unique to Islam?
If it's not unique to Islam, pointing out that Mohammed was a warlord is pointless and doesn't actually tell us anything. You're essentially claiming a causal relationship without any proof of causation.
Looks like another attack in France. One cop dead, one wounded. Attacker dead.
At least as of initial reporting...
Well that's the French election decided then...
Not necessarily. Remember people thought the murder of Jo Cox by a right supremacist would swing the vote on Brexit but it didn't. Heaven help France if they do decide to go with Le Pen though.
Looks like another attack in France. One cop dead, one wounded. Attacker dead.
At least as of initial reporting...
Well that's the French election decided then...
Not necessarily. Remember people thought the murder of Jo Cox by a right supremacist would swing the vote on Brexit but it didn't. Heaven help France if they do decide to go with Le Pen though.
True but this one has the added stigma of being potential "Islamic" and that plus the fact France has had so many may give it more momentum in regards to that as it looks like yet another attack.
Aye that would kinda kill the EU.... Be a pretty solid blow given France are high on pecking order.
We haven't had a long and frequent series of Right Wing terror attacks across Europe almost at a rate of once per month.
We have however had a long and frequent series of Islamic terror attacks across Europe almost at a rate of once per month.
The fact is people simply aren't afraid of Right Wing terrorism like they are of Islamic terrorism, because its much rarer by an order of magnitude. We don't lose any sleep over it. People do however wonder how many weeks, nay, days, it will be until the next Muslim decides to run someone over or detonate a bomb or go on a stabbing spree on the tube.
Its much easier to shrug your shoulders, keep calm and carry on without changing your political stances or voting intentions over something which happens not even once in a blue moon... but something which happens almost every week?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We haven't had a long and frequent series of Right Wing terror attacks across Europe almost at a rate of once per month.
We have however had a long and frequent series of Islamic terror attacks across Europe almost at a rate of once per month.
The fact is people simply aren't afraid of Right Wing terrorism like they are of Islamic terrorism, because its much rarer by an order of magnitude. We don't lose any sleep over it. People do however wonder how many weeks, nay, days, it will be until the next Muslim decides to run someone over or detonate a bomb or go on a stabbing spree on the tube.
Its much easier to shrug your shoulders, keep calm and carry on without changing your political stances or voting intentions over something which happens not even once in a blue moon... but something which happens almost every week?
This si true.
We are going maybe if on right wing terror. It's pretty rare.
We are sat expecting thr next Islamic linked attacked as when will it happen.
There's been a obvious change, you seen the soldiers out across France, UK has alot more armed police and semi military esque units. The climate has changed. Police changed to meet it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Lets put it this way....those soldiers aren't patrolling the streets to stop 'fascists', are they?
Wait, no...thats not actually true....they're there because of Islamo-fascism.
Or the ram proof barriers installed at Eifle tower, thr yellow steel and concrete on London.
The ram proof steel barriers planned for changing of the guard.
Thr huge decrotive planters and statues buildings have.
There all anti ram protection..
If you turn off your BS "news" sources you won't be afraid of any kind of terrorism, no matter who may propagate it. You are more likely to be killed by lightning, or bees, or drowning in a pool.
Terrorism is way, way down on the list of things to live in mortal fear of.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Lets put it this way....those soldiers aren't patrolling the streets to stop 'fascists', are they?
Wait, no...thats not actually true....they're there because of Islamo-fascism.
Or the ram proof barriers installed at Eifle tower, thr yellow steel and concrete on London.
The ram proof steel barriers planned for changing of the guard.
Thr huge decrotive planters and statues buildings have.
There all anti ram protection..
Umm not seen a right wing car ramming attack?
Given those started going up in the US right after the OKC bombing...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We haven't had a long and frequent series of Right Wing terror attacks across Europe almost at a rate of once per month.
That's because Europe constantly hunts down right wing extremist. Europe will never give right wing extremism the chance to grow to the same level of Islamic terrorism.
Thr huge decrotive planters and statues buildings have.
There all anti ram protection..
Umm not seen a right wing car ramming attack?
Not quite. The big decorative planters and the like aren't to prevent/stop ramming (though it is a side-effect of their installation), but rather they are/have been developed to stop car bombs. The less decorative posts and some other recent installations are to prevent ramming type attacks, but these things have been in planning for so long that you need to look further back than extremist religious terrorism of the 21st century.
Some people on these boards are probably undoubtedly old enough to remember The Troubles, which is actually much more what so much of the barrier protection is designed to prevent/inhibit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do any of you actually have any proof that right-wing terrorism is rare, or are you just assuming?
I think the main difference is that ISIS (and before that Al Qaeda, though they are still around) have drawn a lot of disparate groups under one banner, whereas the far-right groups are disjointed and generally interested in their own country (and hence they aren't co-ordinated). On top of this European countries are well aware of what happens when countries drift too far right and there is still a lot of opposition to that type of thinking even if that resistance currently appears to be softening because of the current issues the world faces. However there are plenty of individual far right individuals that have taken action, it's just not in the same co-ordinated way as ISIS. I think a bigger issue for the EU and US is that an increasingly harder right wing is seeping into the governments in response to current world issues.
We should not forget that this is what the terrorists want. Increasingly hard right wing rhetoric alienates more people that may then fall in with ISIS because of the way the world treats them. Increasingly hard right governments that reduce aid funding and so on or fail to support third world countries then increases the antagonist view of the west and the cycle repeats. This is where a large part of the risk lies with things like Brexit, Le Pen, Trump etc and countries becoming more nationalistic.
CptJake wrote: Why not make a Right Wing Terror thread for all your theoretical and philosophical musings and keep this one from going off topic and getting locked?
And use the France Election thread for musings about that event for the same reasons?
Hey, you're the one who started the discussion here about the French attack.
CptJake wrote: Why not make a Right Wing Terror thread for all your theoretical and philosophical musings and keep this one from going off topic and getting locked?
And use the France Election thread for musings about that event for the same reasons?
Hey, you're the one who started the discussion here about the French attack.
Yes, about the attack, not the elections and not about right wing terror.
The attack, which fits the template we've seen for DaIsh/DaIsh inspired attacks in Europe. That is on topic.
CptJake wrote: Why not make a Right Wing Terror thread for all your theoretical and philosophical musings and keep this one from going off topic and getting locked?
And use the France Election thread for musings about that event for the same reasons?
Hey, you're the one who started the discussion here about the French attack.
Yes, about the attack, not the elections and not about right wing terror.
The attack, which fits the template we've seen for DaIsh/DaIsh inspired attacks in Europe. That is on topic.
Elections and Right Wing terror? Not so much.
it very much first the past pattern of attacks, and tactics. also matchs with the attempt to take a soldiers gun in a airport earlier this year.
I think the main difference is that ISIS (and before that Al Qaeda, though they are still around) have drawn a lot of disparate groups under one banner, whereas the far-right groups are disjointed and generally interested in their own country (and hence they aren't co-ordinated).
European fascist movements do cooperate on an international scale. We've had instances of Swedish nazis travelling to Eastern Europe to learn knife fighting, for example. There's this whole "European brotherhood" thing.
Islamic extremism, which is really just a kind of right-wing extremism, is focused on mainly because of racism. White terror isn't a threat to the ruling class while brown terror is.
Rosebuddy wrote: European fascist movements do cooperate on an international scale. We've had instances of Swedish nazis travelling to Eastern Europe to learn knife fighting, for example.
And these organisations do distribute their national propaganda to other national groups so the others can use it. If there's an incident in one country (or something you can write up as an incident) the neonazis will make sure their connected organisations elsewhere get to read the right account of it, according to their opinion.
The difference is that ISIS is willing to take credit and responsibility for deeds done by lone wolfs that never had any contact with them. Neonazis and other European right-wing groups will deny having anything to do with whatever some guy did while being perfectly fine with using it to further their own aims. Breivik in Norway claimed his massmurder was justified because the social democrats he attacked were too lenient in allowing immigration to Norway, especially muslim immigrants. Groups of a similar bent can't go public with their approval of such a crazy deed but they can latch on to his thoughts on why immigration is bad.
the threat posed by Islamic state, and the Islamic groups who excavated recent attacks have forced a reaction in Europe.
Because Europeans have no problem understanding how dangerous an enemy with a shovel and some explosives can be.
As demonstrated here at Hawthorn Ridge, the Somme, the Henry Pleasants' Special has proven very popular in standard and asymmetrical warfare throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
I'll point out that as impressive as MOAB is, the US found that aerial bombings against tunnels at Củ Chi and Vịnh Mốc were less successful than hoped. Vịnh Mốc had slightly over 9,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on and around it, and is still around today, though as a museum. Hitting mountain strongholds in Afghanistan also proved difficult as mountain and glacial scree seems to screw with ground penetrating bombs penetration of said ground.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Isn't the MOAB a thermobaric weapon though? You don't have to break the tunnels if everyone in them are dead.
Thermobaric weapons are not magic, and while they can produce a vacuum effect,this is limited with surface impacts. The main destruction is the massive shock wave that moves through the tunnels causing collapses when the weapon does not penetrait. For a FAE to have maximum effect you really do have to break the tunnels, so that the fuel can disperse before ignition, and create all your sexy vacuum, poison, and blast wave effects.
In worst case situations, a failed detonation can kill civilians due to the dispersal of a cloud of toxic chemicals such as Ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. UXBs in this case are to be treated as areas where poison gas has been used.
You know, I wonder if being eaten BY bacon is unclean?
Lol. You know I don,t think there is a section on death by pig... This is definitely different!
I think this a new one. They may need to issue a new fatwa on the situation.
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, I wonder if being eaten BY bacon is unclean?
If you died a martyr it doesn't really matter what happens to your body. So the ISIS guys wouldn't care, but if you did this to others? Congratulations, many would object loudly and join them in fighting an enemy doing such a barbaric thing.
Already the scum of society begins to seep out. The Facebook post I saw this story on, had a woman saying "he probably killed himself from all the evil things he did, murdering so many innocent people."
The world we live in, when ISIS is the "innocent people". *sighs*
the threat posed by Islamic state, and the Islamic groups who excavated recent attacks have forced a reaction in Europe.
Because Europeans have no problem understanding how dangerous an enemy with a shovel and some explosives can be.
As demonstrated here at Hawthorn Ridge, the Somme, the Henry Pleasants' Special has proven very popular in standard and asymmetrical warfare throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
I'll point out that as impressive as MOAB is, the US found that aerial bombings against tunnels at Củ Chi and Vịnh Mốc were less successful than hoped. Vịnh Mốc had slightly over 9,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on and around it, and is still around today, though as a museum. Hitting mountain strongholds in Afghanistan also proved difficult as mountain and glacial scree seems to screw with ground penetrating bombs penetration of said ground.
I'll point out the MOAB was very specifically chosen when this specific target set was given to the lead targeteers for one of the services. No amount of regular bombs can generate the specific types of pressure waves the MOAB can. The only other munitions which do so are nuclear. Ground penetration was NOT the desire. The bomb did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is exactly why it was chosen.
I know for a fact the choice to use this munition was very deliberate and involved a lot of detailed analysis of a very talented team. The MOAB was chosen for a reason, and 'cool factor' had nothing to do with it.
CptJake wrote: and 'cool factor' had nothing to do with it.
So, you're claiming that at no point, not one of them said, 'What will the effect be on enemy morale'? I have little doubt it was picked for many reasons, shock value, in more ways than one, being among them.
Or is that coming from the recent spate of critical reports on the use and apparent failure of the MOAB to do very much, as the tunnels are apparently still largely intact,despite 94 (largest estimate) ISIS casualties? Noting, the post date on my post, and the fact that the reports started coming out last Friday?
I'm claiming, based on talking with the guy who did much of the analysis and recommended the MOAB, that they looked at the target (tunnel system in that specific terrain) and the desired effect. Enemy morale was not a factor in the weaponeering for that strike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it was not designed to destroy all the tunnels, just the folks and gear in them, and it did so.
U.S. and Afghan officials revealed Sunday that the head of ISIS in Afghanistan, Abdul Hasib has been confirmed dead as a result of a join U.S. and Afghan operation carried out on April 27th. The raid was carried out by 50 U.S. Army Rangers and 40 Afghan commandos.
A Pentagon spokesperson previously said that Hasib was most likely killed but there has been no confirmation until now.
Hasib’s predecessor, Hafiz Saeed Khan was killed in a U.S. drone strike.
The 90 troops were dropped by helicopter into Nangarhar Province, close to where the U.S. MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” was dropped on April 13. Upon landing the Rangers were met with heavy fire and called in air support from drones, Apache helicopters, F-16s and an AC-130. Gen. John Nicholson said in a statement that “This successful joint operation is another important step in our relentless campaign to defeat ISIS-K in 2017,” and continued, ‘This is the second ISIS-K emir we have killed in nine months, along with dozens of their leaders and hundreds of their fighters.”
The statement said that 35 ISIS fighters and high ranking commanders were also killed in the raid.
On Twitter Sunday, President Ashraf Ghani’s Office confirmed Hasib’s death in the attack.
“He was responsible for ordering the attack on the 400-bed hospital in Kabul, kidnapped girls and beheaded elders in front of their families,” the President’s office said.
U.S. and Afghan officials revealed Sunday that the head of ISIS in Afghanistan, Abdul Hasib has been confirmed dead as a result of a join U.S. and Afghan operation carried out on April 27th. The raid was carried out by 50 U.S. Army Rangers and 40 Afghan commandos.
A Pentagon spokesperson previously said that Hasib was most likely killed but there has been no confirmation until now.
Hasib’s predecessor, Hafiz Saeed Khan was killed in a U.S. drone strike.
The 90 troops were dropped by helicopter into Nangarhar Province, close to where the U.S. MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” was dropped on April 13. Upon landing the Rangers were met with heavy fire and called in air support from drones, Apache helicopters, F-16s and an AC-130. Gen. John Nicholson said in a statement that “This successful joint operation is another important step in our relentless campaign to defeat ISIS-K in 2017,” and continued, ‘This is the second ISIS-K emir we have killed in nine months, along with dozens of their leaders and hundreds of their fighters.”
The statement said that 35 ISIS fighters and high ranking commanders were also killed in the raid.
On Twitter Sunday, President Ashraf Ghani’s Office confirmed Hasib’s death in the attack.
“He was responsible for ordering the attack on the 400-bed hospital in Kabul, kidnapped girls and beheaded elders in front of their families,” the President’s office said.
The hospital raid resulted in 30 deaths.
A nitpick. I thought Army Rangers were light infantry and not special forces? Am I confused again?
On the actual story, great another ISIS Emir killed in the endless war against ideology. I am sure THIS ONE will be the straw that breaks ISIS in Afghanistan's back!
Also, the Battle for Mosul is still going on, not that you could tell from the media in the US.
U.S. and Afghan officials revealed Sunday that the head of ISIS in Afghanistan, Abdul Hasib has been confirmed dead as a result of a join U.S. and Afghan operation carried out on April 27th. The raid was carried out by 50 U.S. Army Rangers and 40 Afghan commandos.
A Pentagon spokesperson previously said that Hasib was most likely killed but there has been no confirmation until now.
Hasib’s predecessor, Hafiz Saeed Khan was killed in a U.S. drone strike.
The 90 troops were dropped by helicopter into Nangarhar Province, close to where the U.S. MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” was dropped on April 13. Upon landing the Rangers were met with heavy fire and called in air support from drones, Apache helicopters, F-16s and an AC-130. Gen. John Nicholson said in a statement that “This successful joint operation is another important step in our relentless campaign to defeat ISIS-K in 2017,” and continued, ‘This is the second ISIS-K emir we have killed in nine months, along with dozens of their leaders and hundreds of their fighters.”
The statement said that 35 ISIS fighters and high ranking commanders were also killed in the raid.
On Twitter Sunday, President Ashraf Ghani’s Office confirmed Hasib’s death in the attack.
“He was responsible for ordering the attack on the 400-bed hospital in Kabul, kidnapped girls and beheaded elders in front of their families,” the President’s office said.
The hospital raid resulted in 30 deaths.
A nitpick. I thought Army Rangers were light infantry and not special forces? Am I confused again?
On the actual story, great another ISIS Emir killed in the endless war against ideology. I am sure THIS ONE will be the straw that breaks ISIS in Afghanistan's back!
Also, the Battle for Mosul is still going on, not that you could tell from the media in the US.
I think Ranger comes under elite regular forces/low level special forces. Not like Delta , SAS but also not like regular infantry.
Like UK Royal Marines are more commando by there very unit names.
Mosul yes. Still fighting to retake that city. Its been a while.
They have one half but not the other side fully secured yet. There over river last I saw on news though.
Ahtman wrote: I thought Rangers were the guys who protected the wilderness pathways to the Gondor and helped hobbits get to Elven Kingdoms.
Don't be ridiculous. Those things are just hobbies. The Rangers are the last sons of Numenor on this mortal plane, and hunt the terrorist leader only known as "Angmar" for his merciless and cowardly attacks on the now defunct state of Arnor
Ahtman wrote: I thought Rangers were the guys who protected the wilderness pathways to the Gondor and helped hobbits get to Elven Kingdoms.
Don't be ridiculous. Those things are just hobbies. The Rangers are the last sons of Numenor on this mortal plane, and hunt the terrorist leader only known as "Angmar" for his merciless and cowardly attacks on the now defunct state of Arnor
A nitpick. I thought Army Rangers were light infantry and not special forces? Am I confused again?
The 75th falls under United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) and have a Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) mission set (along with Seal Team 6/DEVGRU/What ever their current name is, Delta/what ever their current name is and other Army and Air Force units and some joint units).
Prior to 9-11 their JSOC type missions mostly involved area/perimeter security for the Tier 1 units. Since 9-11 they have massively expanded capabilities and conduct what would have been Tier 1 unit missions on their own. The 75th BNs and Regt commands have been given command of areas of operations and commanded other JSOC forces within those AOs. The Regiment's reconnaissance unit has expanded (force structure and capability) greatly and performs missions supporting JSOC/SOCOM units around the globe.
There is a lot of common training between the various SOCOM/JSOC units. For example, medics in the 75th go through special forces medical training. The 75th is one of the few organizations which send troops to JTAC training. They have very much evolved past 'elite light infantry' in the last few years as their organization and capability expansions indicate.
Here is the USASOC page, note the 75th is one of the units listed on the left: http://www.soc.mil
Easy E wrote: A related question, Marine Scout Snipers? Are they under JSOC command now, or still just elite marines. I couldn;t get CptJake's website to open up.
Scout Sniper is a specialty, and there are scout sniper slots in regular infantry rifle BNs (they have a recon platoon at BN level). The specialty requires a school to earn the MOS (which is a secondary MOS). Kind of like Ranger School earns you an identifier at the end of your MOS in the Army (not every Ranger qualified trooper is in the 75th). The USMC recently (2006) created Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) http://www.marsoc.marines.mil They fall under United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM): http://www.socom.mil and do have units which can perform JSOC operations and do train with JSOC elements.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration accused the Syrian government Monday of carrying out mass killings of thousands of prisoners and burning the bodies in a large crematorium outside the capital. It also stepped up criticism of Iran and Russia for supporting the Syrian government.
The allegation came as President Donald Trump is weighing options in Syria, where the U.S. attacked a government air base last month in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians.
But Trump hasn’t outlined a larger strategy for ending the Arab country’s civil war or ushering Syrian President Bashar Assad out of power. These questions were sure to arise in his meeting at the White House with the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince Monday, a day before Turkey’s president arrives.
The State Department said it believed that about 50 detainees a day are being hanged at Saydnaya military prison, about 45 minutes north of Damascus. Many of the bodies, it said, are then burned in the crematorium.
“We believe that the building of a crematorium is an effort to cover up the extent of mass murders taking place,” said Stuart Jones, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, in accusing the Syrian government of sinking “to a new level of depravity.”
The department released commercial satellite photographs showing what it described as a building in the prison complex that was modified to support the crematorium. The photographs, taken over the course of several years, beginning in 2013, do not definitely prove the building is a crematorium, but they show construction consistent with such use.
In presenting the photographs, Jones called on Russia and Iran to press Assad’s government to establish a credible cease-fire with Syrian rebel groups and begin negotiations on a political settlement.
“We are appalled by the atrocities that have been carried out by the Syrian regime and these atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran,” Jones said.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had been “firm and clear” in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week that “Russia holds tremendous influence over Bashar al-Assad.”
A main point of that meeting “was telling Russia to use its power to rein in the regime,” she said. “Simply put, the killing, the devastation has gone on for far too long in Syria.”
The war has killed as many as 400,000 people since 2011. It has contributed to Europe’s worst refugee crisis since World War II and enabled the Islamic State group to emerge as a global terrorism threat.
Trump travels to the Middle East later this week on his first official foreign trip.
Shades of nazi concentration camps / gas chambers...
Comrade Trump helping out his buds with ISIS intel...classified intel...but hey, emails.
"President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."
So sad that the US wouldn't let not the Syrian Army but Iranian backed militia put tanks in position to assault their base in an effort to eliminate US backed rebel gains against ISIS.
Again we see 'Assad supporters' supporting ISIS with Russian equipment. I wonder how they got it?
So sad that the US wouldn't let not the Syrian Army but Iranian backed militia put tanks in position to assault their base in an effort to eliminate US backed rebel gains against ISIS.
Again we see 'Assad supporters' supporting ISIS with Russian equipment. I wonder how they got it?
The same way those "US backed rebels" get their weapons?
The same way those "US backed rebels" get their weapons?
I know, but I wanted to see what mental backflips Freakzoitt would do to 'prove' they were not and never had been Russian gear purchased by Iran and distributed to the Syrians.
The web of who suplies what to who is a right complicated one.
From big source nations like US and Russia, to allies, to who selling old hardware, or blackmarkets and then the internal, regional and other serris of groups and political factions inside further factions.
Tracing exactly who did what at times. You'd go mad.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration accused the Syrian government Monday of carrying out mass killings of thousands of prisoners and burning the bodies in a large crematorium outside the capital. It also stepped up criticism of Iran and Russia for supporting the Syrian government.
The allegation came as President Donald Trump is weighing options in Syria, where the U.S. attacked a government air base last month in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians.
But Trump hasn’t outlined a larger strategy for ending the Arab country’s civil war or ushering Syrian President Bashar Assad out of power. These questions were sure to arise in his meeting at the White House with the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince Monday, a day before Turkey’s president arrives.
The State Department said it believed that about 50 detainees a day are being hanged at Saydnaya military prison, about 45 minutes north of Damascus. Many of the bodies, it said, are then burned in the crematorium.
“We believe that the building of a crematorium is an effort to cover up the extent of mass murders taking place,” said Stuart Jones, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, in accusing the Syrian government of sinking “to a new level of depravity.”
The department released commercial satellite photographs showing what it described as a building in the prison complex that was modified to support the crematorium. The photographs, taken over the course of several years, beginning in 2013, do not definitely prove the building is a crematorium, but they show construction consistent with such use.
In presenting the photographs, Jones called on Russia and Iran to press Assad’s government to establish a credible cease-fire with Syrian rebel groups and begin negotiations on a political settlement.
“We are appalled by the atrocities that have been carried out by the Syrian regime and these atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran,” Jones said.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had been “firm and clear” in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week that “Russia holds tremendous influence over Bashar al-Assad.”
A main point of that meeting “was telling Russia to use its power to rein in the regime,” she said. “Simply put, the killing, the devastation has gone on for far too long in Syria.”
The war has killed as many as 400,000 people since 2011. It has contributed to Europe’s worst refugee crisis since World War II and enabled the Islamic State group to emerge as a global terrorism threat.
Trump travels to the Middle East later this week on his first official foreign trip.
Shades of nazi concentration camps / gas chambers...
Heat imagery should conform that at end of day.
If there burning 40-50 bodies, that's alot of heat they gonna need.
Alot more than a regular building in a prison complex.
Or a local insurgency group that calls themselves ISIS? Seriously, anybody can call themselves ISIS and go out and commit a terror attack in their name. ISIS is not just an organisation, its a movement.
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
I suspect its a case of "If we can't have it, no-one can!". They know they're losing and are going lose control over Mosul, so they're using a scorched earth tactic.
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
I suspect its a case of "If we can't have it, no-one can!". They know they're losing and are going lose control over Mosul, so they're using a scorched earth tactic.
Yeah, there losing badly, and the enemy have not stopped closing in.
Attacks on Raqqa too.. With artillery...
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
Their claim is 'the US did it', so likely more to it than a scorched earth - the claim is unsubstantiated, but let's face it, it's an attempt to generate further anti-US sentiment.
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
I suspect its a case of "If we can't have it, no-one can!". They know they're losing and are going lose control over Mosul, so they're using a scorched earth tactic.
IIRC they were going to blow it up once already, back in 2014 - the mosque and minaret combo was for some reason not quite properly islamic enough for the more lunatic fanatic fundamentalists. Probably because there are decorations - that would be "frivolous" and as such to be avoided.
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
I suspect its a case of "If we can't have it, no-one can!". They know they're losing and are going lose control over Mosul, so they're using a scorched earth tactic.
IIRC they were going to blow it up once already, back in 2014 - the mosque and minaret combo was for some reason not quite properly islamic enough for the more lunatic fanatic fundamentalists. Probably because there are decorations - that would be "frivolous" and as such to be avoided.
Odd. I think I have yet to see a single Mosque where there weren't any decorations. There's always at least those swirly patterns.
jhe90 wrote: If true there now destroyed own religious site. Well done guys...
I suspect its a case of "If we can't have it, no-one can!". They know they're losing and are going lose control over Mosul, so they're using a scorched earth tactic.
IIRC they were going to blow it up once already, back in 2014 - the mosque and minaret combo was for some reason not quite properly islamic enough for the more lunatic fanatic fundamentalists. Probably because there are decorations - that would be "frivolous" and as such to be avoided.
Odd. I think I have yet to see a single Mosque where there weren't any decorations. There's always at least those swirly patterns.
This is a good indicator that ISIS is not representative of mainstream Islam in any way.
ISIS fighters fleeing the Middle East and returning to Europe to seek new job opportunities are struggling to find jobs, the Swedish daily newspaper Expressen reported.
The newspaper interviewed several of the 150 ISIS members returning to Sweden from the Middle East and asked them how hard it was to find jobs.
“I just want to forget everything,” 27-year-old Walad Yousef told the Expressen. “I apply for a lot of jobs, but I can’t get any because my pictures are out there.”
According to the newspaper, Yousef sent pictures of himself at a training camp to friends back in Sweden. In one of the pictures, Yousef is posing with a Kalashnikov rifle.
One of the returning ISIS members refused to do an interview with the newspaper, and said that he has “enough problems” finding a job.
Others said that they left for Syria to help civilians, despite leaked records obtained by the Expressen that said they went to the Middle East to join ISIS.
One former ISIS member denied being a part of ISIS, and said that the newspaper was in contact with the wrong person.
“That’s very strange. Anyone can say they’re me,” Hassan Al-Mandlawi said. “I mean, it’s war. Maybe someone recommended me, I don’t know.”
Sweden is one of the many European countries struggling to deal with terror attacks. Many of their citizens have left the country to join ISIS.
“The vast majority do not do anything, but they are still a danger to the authorities and it must be managed,” terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp told the Expressen. “It is important for the police to be able to prioritize this area so that they do not become dangerous for society.”
ISIS fighters fleeing the Middle East and returning to Europe to seek new job opportunities are struggling to find jobs, the Swedish daily newspaper Expressen reported.
The newspaper interviewed several of the 150 ISIS members returning to Sweden from the Middle East and asked them how hard it was to find jobs.
“I just want to forget everything,” 27-year-old Walad Yousef told the Expressen. “I apply for a lot of jobs, but I can’t get any because my pictures are out there.”
According to the newspaper, Yousef sent pictures of himself at a training camp to friends back in Sweden. In one of the pictures, Yousef is posing with a Kalashnikov rifle.
One of the returning ISIS members refused to do an interview with the newspaper, and said that he has “enough problems” finding a job.
Others said that they left for Syria to help civilians, despite leaked records obtained by the Expressen that said they went to the Middle East to join ISIS.
One former ISIS member denied being a part of ISIS, and said that the newspaper was in contact with the wrong person.
“That’s very strange. Anyone can say they’re me,” Hassan Al-Mandlawi said. “I mean, it’s war. Maybe someone recommended me, I don’t know.”
Sweden is one of the many European countries struggling to deal with terror attacks. Many of their citizens have left the country to join ISIS.
“The vast majority do not do anything, but they are still a danger to the authorities and it must be managed,” terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp told the Expressen. “It is important for the police to be able to prioritize this area so that they do not become dangerous for society.”
What I'd like to know is ...why were they not shot on arrival in Europe?
ISIS fighters fleeing the Middle East and returning to Europe to seek new job opportunities are struggling to find jobs, the Swedish daily newspaper Expressen reported.
The newspaper interviewed several of the 150 ISIS members returning to Sweden from the Middle East and asked them how hard it was to find jobs.
“I just want to forget everything,” 27-year-old Walad Yousef told the Expressen. “I apply for a lot of jobs, but I can’t get any because my pictures are out there.”
According to the newspaper, Yousef sent pictures of himself at a training camp to friends back in Sweden. In one of the pictures, Yousef is posing with a Kalashnikov rifle.
One of the returning ISIS members refused to do an interview with the newspaper, and said that he has “enough problems” finding a job.
Others said that they left for Syria to help civilians, despite leaked records obtained by the Expressen that said they went to the Middle East to join ISIS.
One former ISIS member denied being a part of ISIS, and said that the newspaper was in contact with the wrong person.
“That’s very strange. Anyone can say they’re me,” Hassan Al-Mandlawi said. “I mean, it’s war. Maybe someone recommended me, I don’t know.”
Sweden is one of the many European countries struggling to deal with terror attacks. Many of their citizens have left the country to join ISIS.
“The vast majority do not do anything, but they are still a danger to the authorities and it must be managed,” terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp told the Expressen. “It is important for the police to be able to prioritize this area so that they do not become dangerous for society.”
What I'd like to know is ...why were they not shot on arrival in Europe?
Because we still have this little thing called due process and the rule of law?
Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
Also, "Sweden is one of the many European countries struggling to deal with terror attacks"? We've had one loony who blew himself up in 2010 and another a month ago who drove a lorry into a crowd. That's two islamic terrorist attacks in almost a decade. How is that "struggling"?
Future War Cultist wrote: Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
God no. you killed, you did hell knows what out there and fought for a bunch of savage barbarians who committed war crimes and used child soldiers, raped, tortured, enslaved and worse.
Even Alquida would not have anything to do with em and called them on killing aid workers!
let the iraq, Syria have em. you did this in there nations, to there people as terrorists, part of a reconised terror group.
Law is the law. you did great harm to those nations and they have every right to hold you to account for your actions.
Far as i think, the momment they joined that group they ceased any right to return home.
you knew exactly what you joined, you saw the media and the news.
there is no i i did not know what they where like.
ISIS fighters fleeing the Middle East and returning to Europe to seek new job opportunities are struggling to find jobs, the Swedish daily newspaper Expressen reported.
The newspaper interviewed several of the 150 ISIS members returning to Sweden from the Middle East and asked them how hard it was to find jobs.
“I just want to forget everything,” 27-year-old Walad Yousef told the Expressen. “I apply for a lot of jobs, but I can’t get any because my pictures are out there.”
According to the newspaper, Yousef sent pictures of himself at a training camp to friends back in Sweden. In one of the pictures, Yousef is posing with a Kalashnikov rifle.
One of the returning ISIS members refused to do an interview with the newspaper, and said that he has “enough problems” finding a job.
Others said that they left for Syria to help civilians, despite leaked records obtained by the Expressen that said they went to the Middle East to join ISIS.
One former ISIS member denied being a part of ISIS, and said that the newspaper was in contact with the wrong person.
“That’s very strange. Anyone can say they’re me,” Hassan Al-Mandlawi said. “I mean, it’s war. Maybe someone recommended me, I don’t know.”
Sweden is one of the many European countries struggling to deal with terror attacks. Many of their citizens have left the country to join ISIS.
“The vast majority do not do anything, but they are still a danger to the authorities and it must be managed,” terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp told the Expressen. “It is important for the police to be able to prioritize this area so that they do not become dangerous for society.”
What I'd like to know is ...why were they not shot on arrival in Europe?
Because we still have this little thing called due process and the rule of law?
Well of course. I guess I should have signposted my hyperbole better.
Future War Cultist wrote: Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
Because they have been identified by the security forces, evaluated and found to pose no threat?
Actually look at what is said in that article. Nowhere does it state that any of these people took part in actual combat. One was photographed with an AK in a training camp and the rest we have no information on. It is entirely possible they went, were being trained for a bit and realised it was all a load of gak and then legged it out of there.
Future War Cultist wrote: Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
Because they have been identified by the security forces, evaluated and found to pose no threat?
and they did what in Syria or Iraq?
theres crimes to be answered. tell that to the people they killed, raped, buried in mass graves and such.
Im sure the Kurds or the Yazidi would agree with you they are safe and able to enjoy there lives again.
Future War Cultist wrote: Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
Because they have been identified by the security forces, evaluated and found to pose no threat?
Members of ISIS pose no threat?
Yeah sure, and the Pope ain't fething Catholic.
I seriously doubt our Security Forces have been able to identify let alone surveil and evaluate all the former members of ISIS returning to Europe. A lot of them will be sneaking back into Europe under false aliases, and taking advantage of European freedom of movement to avoid identity checks (i.e. national border controls).
I'm wondering if they even know they're back? And let's hope they don't do anything whilst 'under surveillance', like too many have done before.
Why do we want them back,.
you showed you joined a group the total athema to western values, freedom and civilization who destroyed history, lives and attempted genocide or close to it.
you joined monsters, you joined Barbarians hell bent on conquest and dragging the world backwards into blood and oppression.
Arrest them and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. There were Nazis who got the noose because they filed paperwork involved with the Holocaust. These guys surely did even worse things.
That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
.
.
(Personal opinion: I think this whole shtick is stupid, we chose the Eurozone and didn't implement it properly. Of course there is a measure of personal responsibility in the Mediterranean countries not getting their finances in order. We can pressure them on that point, but please lets stop pretending were getting our money back from places like Greece, just start restructuring that debt instead of forever being afraid of losing those voters dumb enough to realize that money is never going to come back. The lack of future planning and the sense of being kindred 
(fun fact, for some reason Italian mobsters seem to like hiding in the Netherlands)
